Damien,
Thank you again for taking the time to read my blog and to contribute to its value. Ok, here we go.
“I think you’ll find that most people who “argue that the Law of Identity could be false” are actually arguing that higher-level ‘axioms’ (quoted to indicate a different definition than yours) that the foundation of applied fields are built upon could be incorrect.”
I realize of course, there exists those who would argue against the law of identity. But why would your first response to my post admittedly originate from a different definition that the one that I explained? This first part of your comment also acknowledges that I have given a definition for axiom that is understood by you, as you indicate that there is another definition. I will expound upon this point in the next section.
I have not met one person who has ever refuted the law of identity citing the reason that you did. I am not saying that these people do not exist, I just have never encountered one and therefore am ignorant of what you are referring to. What are the “higher level ‘axioms’” that these people believe are incorrect? Interestingly, your usage of the word built has implications which I am not sure that you have considered. If an applied field is built, that means it has structure and form. Whether the field or structure is logical, metaphysical, scientific, secular, material, or philosophical is irrelevant. Anything that is built has structure. Do they imply that a house built on sand will have structure? What applied fields have foundations upon these other axioms that you refer to? How are these fields maintained and preserved if they are truly built upon, if I may be oxymoronic, “false axioms”?
“You’re applying your definition of ‘axiom’ to their words, which can lead to confusion if their definition differs. I would hate to see you arguing against a point that nobody made. Axiom is not always axiom.”
Who is the “they” that I am meant to have misquoted? The necessary function of the axiom in human thought has been one of many topics revolving around the carousel of my head for a while and it just happened to stop on this particular issue. I quoted no one and no one person is the basis of this post. And, as you may check on my last post, I was very careful to include the etymology of the word as the basis of my definition. This word was used for millennia with cognitive, metaphysical, and philosophical connotations. Is there an alternate etymology that I am not aware of? I also clearly stated that the axioms to which I refer, and would elaborate upon, were within the context of the requirements for human reason, rationality, and logic. It is within this context, I will show that to use rational and logical thought to refute these laws is impossible. For the very axioms that one would attempt to refute are necessary for the ability to reason some type of refutation.
This is done in an attempt to establish not only clarity of discussion, but also to establish accepted starting points for opposing arguments. This is vital as to engage in debate with someone without some type of a first, mutually agreed upon principle, is pointless. As the title says, you can’t play basketball without a court. It is the equivalent of two people attempting to debate which is the best fruit, the apple or the peach, without first defining what a fruit is. The ensuing debate would be meaningless. It is within this context that I discuss the axiom. I am not sure as to why my original definition was unclear. Axiom is always axiom. I hope I have cleared it up.
“The type of circular argument you’re attempting to fight seems like a fruitless endeavor. Just sum it up with “A is A, and you need a whole different (Godly?) way of thinking to consider otherwise.” God might be able to reason beyond the limitations of Identity, but we’re bound to it unless we adopt an alternative to logic.”
I agree that it is fruitless. I am not attempting to fight a circular argument. The one that argues circularly is beyond reason. The blatant contradictions present in such a viewpoint render it completely feeble and defenseless, and rightly so. No real argument should be needed. Yet today, in our increasingly relativistic, pluralistic, and postmodern society, I have found a great many people that believe and cling to the very circular argument that you and I find to be so preposterous. Therefore an argument is needed.
This site is not an attempt to argue in the confrontational sense however. It is an apologia, or a defense for the Christian worldview. I believe that this site has proven to serve a twofold purpose. On the one hand, I believe that this blog can be used a resource for those Christians with maybe not enough time or resources, to gain a better understanding of why it is that they believe what they believe. To aid them in their conversation with non-believers and to learn the way to structure their responses to the kinds of questions that they will be facing on a daily basis. On the other hand, I think that this site can provide those who do not understand the Christian worldview, the opportunity to see that to be a Christian, does not so fly in the face of reality as skeptics would have them believe. It also demonstrates that it is possible to be a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord, as well as an intellectual and rational person who’s leap of faith in all actuality is not so different than the leap of faith that is required of the most (pardon my redundancy) skeptical skeptic. I would argue that it is actually a smaller leap for the Christian, as at the very least, he bases his life on a historically recorded man that actually lived, died and rose again. But that is another topic for another time.
“How useful is the law of identity outside of its metaphysical use? “I am me” is true in the abstract sense, but I’m not the same as I was when I began typing this sentence. I suspect that all physical things are similar, undergoing continuous, if miniscule, changes. I understand this is beyond the scope of your blog, but it may be people claiming skepticism in this area that prompted this blog entry.”
You are correct. The original purpose of this post was not to include the physical effects of the law of identity. However, since you have broached the subject, I will respond. The value of the law of identity outside of metaphysics is tremendous. You should not be so quick to marginalize it to a purely metaphysical usage.
The statement regarding your state of being supposedly shifting from second to second is a bit misleading. In the sense that certain molecules are not in the same place or necessarily the same state, you are correct. However, you are incorrect with your implied connection between this miniscule rearranging and or conversion of energy, and the absence of the law of identity in the physical realm. It is a non sequitur.
I will stick with the human body as it is a mutually accepted example and therefore refutation will prove more difficult. You are human. The term is irrelevant really. The important idea to grasp is that there is a term. If humans were instead known as “thecsos”, it would not change the identity that you had. You are not a shape shifting being, you are a human. You did not change state of being while these miniscule changes were going on. Also, without the physical connotations of the law of identity, much worse problems arise in its absence. Without a proton being anything other than a proton, life stops. Without an electron being anything but an electron, life stops. Without the strong nuclear force being anything but that, life stops. I could go on and on yet out of fear of boring our readers, I will refrain. Our bodies require our cells to be what they are. It requires oxygen to always have the label oxygen and possess the identical properties of oxygen, the same as it requires white blood cells to always be labeled white blood cells and possess the identity of white blood cells.
If the body, (conceptually extrapolated-the physical realm) did not contain within it, the properties of the law of identity, it would not be able to communicate with itself in order to sustain our lives. In DNA replication, the thing labeled Guanine sends out a signal looking for the thing labeled Cytosine. If these things somehow lost their identity, or if somehow they were able to shift their identity at will, chaos would ensue. Our bodies require identification in order to function. Without the physical application of the law of identity, this vital internal communication present in all animate beings comes to a grinding halt.
My response was meant to simply point out that only reasonable people are worth reasoning with. Assuming you understand this, the only sensible audience for your blog entry would be those that subscribe to the law of identity. I thought you may have had a miscommunication with the “large collection of people” by way of differing definitions. If I was wrong, then you are countering the position of “Something is not itself”, which is fruitless, but I look forward to reading your take on it
As to the fields that use ‘false axioms’ (which isn’t necessarily oxymoronic), we could use physics as an example. Einstein expanded Newtonian physics and Euclidian geometry, two systems built on “false axioms”, though they worked out quite well for many years…they still work enough to be tremendously useful. These are the axioms I speak of; the building blocks of many sciences. They are sometimes incorrect, but close enough to be useful.
The term axiom implies a universal law. If there is one thing in the physical world that violates the axiom, then the axiom is, at the very least, incomplete. I think the identity axiom would work better for the physical world if we added a temporal qualifier on it: a grape is a grape until it is a raisin. There may be quantum objects that are volatile enough to not maintain their identity, but I can’t speak authoritatively on that as my understanding of quantum mechanics isn’t up to scratch. I surmise that the identity principle is a close enough approximation to be useful when dealing with the physical world, but not all encompassing.
By: Damien Gregory on July 8, 2010
at 1:14 pm