I reject the Law Of Identity as Proof for itself

[yeetbender.koala]

This train of thought is absurd and leads nowhere.

 

[yeetbender.koala]

why is A = A?
why is A itself A?
why can't it be any other thing?

Absurd troon logic: "Just because it has y chromosome and a penis and testis doesn't mean its gender identiy isn't valid bro!" A=A because it is the self evident reality that is literally staring you in the face.

 

[ResidentHell]

I'm not playing with semantics, I'm rigidly, mechanically, and autistically intrested in proving the law of identity or at least seeking out the proof. Idk why this adam nigga thinks i'm debunking it, i'm literally wanting to prove it. i want a proof, that's all. i literally said it itself is not a proof good enough for me, as the west takes that for granted.

You have raised a justifiable point. The common definitions for numbers (and certain words) seem to be circular. So it could be said, the Law of Identity is a circular statement. I would recommend that you are aware the Law of Identity is an assumption, not necessarily a provable fact (at least not provable without circular reasoning). It is an axiom; something that is taken to be true in order to establish a basis for logical reasoning and logical argument. There is no proof of the Law of Identity. But the Law of Identity is considered a fundamental law of thought, as it is often needed to start a foundation for making deductions about “facts” or “things” that might exist

If you were to completely abandon the Law of Identity, you would have to deal with the dilemma of not having a foundation to derive a logical argument or a logical train of thought, because the “things” or “facts” that you would have to decide in advance, wouldn’t “be” themselves. Basically it will mean you’ll have no foundation for deductive reasoning about “facts”

For example, you made the claim that “You reject the Law of Identity”. If you stand by this claim, it means by your own logical framework, you can essentially make the deduction that “things” and “facts”, are not actually “things” or “facts”. So, the fact that you claim “You reject the Law of Identity” may not be a fact; it could be a fictional narrative that you came up with. The computer system that you used to create this post, may not be a computer system, but something that isn’t a computer system. The online website forum “incels.is” that you posted this claim, may not be an online website forum called “incels.is”. Now you have to suspend judgement of all things, including “your own actions”, since you don’t have a foundation for identity in logical reasoning

This leads to a new existential dilemma: How can you be sure that anything is as it seems if the Law of Identity doesn’t apply? This relates to Descartes’ evil demon - A logical argument for deducing what one can and cannot be certain about. Ultimately the conclusion to Descartes’ evil demon is that there’s only one “fact of existence” that he could confirm - His ability to think. Everything else in existence besides his ability to think, was worthy of doubt

This logical argument by Descartes is also considered to be one of the building blocks for the modern scientific method. The library of “facts” or “known results” in scientific fields is constantly under scrutiny despite overwhelming evidence that may be available to support it, because rigorous scientists are expected to be open-minded to the possibility that there may be discovery of data that would challenge the views of the scientific consensus in the future, even if odds are low. If you are a cognizant being, then perhaps you are able to ascertain the existence of cognizance. So you at least cannot deny the identity of cognizance; the ability to think is the ability to think

 

[bonedigger06]

No, I'm not trolling. I'm being serious

why is 2 = 2?
because 2 itself is 2?
Yeah sorry, that 'proof' doesn't cut it for me.

that's just one of the couple of things that get taken for granted in the world and I will not settle for not having an explanation for it.

why is A = A?
why is A itself A?
why can't it be any other thing?


I have my ideas on where to start proving this statement but before I explore and document my journey here I want to hear from you guys first about where you think one should start looking.(*Please append your racial admixture in terms of percentage(s) in your response, as I converged on evidence that there are underlying cognitive styles that dictate how one experiences experience itself that fundamentally differ between the three major races: Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid... with every science thereafter being an attempt to obfuscate the truth as I believe they got it right the first time. While I won't discard other opinions, I prefer my "-oid"'s opinion because I believe we are arbiters of reality.)

Dear Sir,
This is a Forbidden thought
The proof of the most CORE AXIOM OF MATHEMATICS i.e UNIVERSAL AS WE THOUGHT
Is the fact "It is because we think and see it"
Once, a famous Mathematician Russel and Whitehead( Famous advocate for Set Theory of George Canton) tried to prove 1+1=2 but ends up writing it over 300 PAGES
Because in reality of Mathematics(we thought) any constant would be unchanged
But if the Universe is infinite then possibilities of Constants not be unchanged also increses and similar vice versa
So,in all cases of Logic, Law of Identity HAS TO BE CONSISTENT BECAUSE IT IS THE ASIS OF LOGIC ITSELF
SO THIS PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION IS PRACTICALLY NOT ABSURB (It a unique Dilemma)RATHER THINKING IN PRACTICE
IT IS THE LAW OF IDENTITY THAT HOLDS REALITY
Brutal but true
If not
THEN I AM GOD ITSELF (JFL)
THEN IT MEANS I CAN TECHNICALLY in theory HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE ALL DIMENSION OF ANY OBJECT.

 

[copemaxx9002]

Most intellectual.is thread

 

[bonedigger06]

You have raised a justifiable point. The common definitions for numbers (and certain words) seem to be circular. So it could be said, the Law of Identity is a circular statement. I would recommend that you are aware the Law of Identity is an assumption, not necessarily a provable fact (at least not provable without circular reasoning). It is an axiom; something that is taken to be true in order to establish a basis for logical reasoning and logical argument. There is no proof of the Law of Identity. But the Law of Identity is considered a fundamental law of thought, as it is often needed to start a foundation for making deductions about “facts” or “things” that might exist

If you were to completely abandon the Law of Identity, you would have to deal with the dilemma of not having a foundation to derive a logical argument or a logical train of thought, because the “things” or “facts” that you would have to decide in advance, wouldn’t “be” themselves. Basically it will mean you’ll have no foundation for deductive reasoning about “facts”

For example, you made the claim that “You reject the Law of Identity”. If you stand by this claim, it means by your own logical framework, you can essentially make the deduction that “things” and “facts”, are not actually “things” or “facts”. So, the fact that you claim “You reject the Law of Identity” may not be a fact; it could be a fictional narrative that you came up with. The computer system that you used to create this post, may not be a computer system, but something that isn’t a computer system. The online website forum “incels.is” that you posted this claim, may not be an online website forum called “incels.is”. Now you have to suspend judgement of all things, including “your own actions”, since you don’t have a foundation for identity in logical reasoning

This leads to a new existential dilemma: How can you be sure that anything is as it seems if the Law of Identity doesn’t apply? This relates to Descartes’ evil demon - A logical argument for deducing what one can and cannot be certain about. Ultimately the conclusion to Descartes’ evil demon is that there’s only one “fact of existence” that he could confirm - His ability to think. Everything else in existence besides his ability to think, was worthy of doubt

This logical argument by Descartes is also considered to be one of the building blocks for the modern scientific method. The library of “facts” or “known results” in scientific fields is constantly under scrutiny despite overwhelming evidence that may be available to support it, because rigorous scientists are expected to be open-minded to the possibility that there may be discovery of data that would challenge the views of the scientific consensus in the future, even if odds are low. If you are a cognizant being, then perhaps you are able to ascertain the existence of cognizance. So you at least cannot deny the identity of cognizance; the ability to think is the ability to think

Descartes when questioning the reality of ourselves finally also concluded
"I THINK THEREFORE I AM"
Similar to a PHILOSOPHY FROM INDIA CALLED ADVAITA VEDANTA ( famous example where once Erwin Schrodinger , one of the most recognizable Scientist and Quantum Physicist famous commonly for "SCHRODINGER'S CAT" problem studied it personally)
Where the Reality in fact is not absolutely perceived Empirically or by "observation"
Kinda a Infinite conondrum of chains in a Maths Function
But also it's generaly can be said that the Ultimate Reality is not a Physical or Tangible object
IN GENERAL IT IS

"NEITHER THAT(we see),NOR THIS(we feel using our conscious mind)"
So,we are just elements in a infinite set of objects,non object( PERFECTLY A SET OF PHYSICAL AND NON-OBSERVABLE PHYSICAL THINGS LIKE OUR FEELING AND CONSCIOUSNESS caused by Brain's and Body's Hormonal control plus things we don't know because those are too infinite in theory and in field of advanced science it a common idea of SCIENTIFIC THEORY)

WE CHOOSE TO BE INCELS
IDK WE ARE HERE
but its ok

 

[bonedigger06]

You have raised a justifiable point. The common definitions for numbers (and certain words) seem to be circular. So it could be said, the Law of Identity is a circular statement. I would recommend that you are aware the Law of Identity is an assumption, not necessarily a provable fact (at least not provable without circular reasoning). It is an axiom; something that is taken to be true in order to establish a basis for logical reasoning and logical argument. There is no proof of the Law of Identity. But the Law of Identity is considered a fundamental law of thought, as it is often needed to start a foundation for making deductions about “facts” or “things” that might exist

If you were to completely abandon the Law of Identity, you would have to deal with the dilemma of not having a foundation to derive a logical argument or a logical train of thought, because the “things” or “facts” that you would have to decide in advance, wouldn’t “be” themselves. Basically it will mean you’ll have no foundation for deductive reasoning about “facts”

For example, you made the claim that “You reject the Law of Identity”. If you stand by this claim, it means by your own logical framework, you can essentially make the deduction that “things” and “facts”, are not actually “things” or “facts”. So, the fact that you claim “You reject the Law of Identity” may not be a fact; it could be a fictional narrative that you came up with. The computer system that you used to create this post, may not be a computer system, but something that isn’t a computer system. The online website forum “incels.is” that you posted this claim, may not be an online website forum called “incels.is”. Now you have to suspend judgement of all things, including “your own actions”, since you don’t have a foundation for identity in logical reasoning

This leads to a new existential dilemma: How can you be sure that anything is as it seems if the Law of Identity doesn’t apply? This relates to Descartes’ evil demon - A logical argument for deducing what one can and cannot be certain about. Ultimately the conclusion to Descartes’ evil demon is that there’s only one “fact of existence” that he could confirm - His ability to think. Everything else in existence besides his ability to think, was worthy of doubt

This logical argument by Descartes is also considered to be one of the building blocks for the modern scientific method. The library of “facts” or “known results” in scientific fields is constantly under scrutiny despite overwhelming evidence that may be available to support it, because rigorous scientists are expected to be open-minded to the possibility that there may be discovery of data that would challenge the views of the scientific consensus in the future, even if odds are low. If you are a cognizant being, then perhaps you are able to ascertain the existence of cognizance. So you at least cannot deny the identity of cognizance; the ability to think is the ability to think

Scientific reason and Philosophy led to believe that Human are a thinking being
Not true for most of us
Because it follow a Normal Distribution in general

for this:
SAY Whores of all Groups,Nowadays most Chads are in general dumb and just have behaviours to facilitate sex(Having Good looks+Positive reinforcement from society builds a confirmation bias of confidence)
Normies have a character in the middle(mostly a underconfidence spectrum due to mixed cases)
In general, Truecels are in general intutivately have potential for Higher Thinking skills but multiple factors led to a life of Disgust and Rot



"STILL THERE IS NO HOPE,WE HAVE TO ACCEPT AND GO IN THE UNKNWN PATH,TO SUFFER FOR AS SUFFERING IS LIFE AND IS A HABIT TO GAIN DROPS OF SATIATION AND HAPPINESS WHICH IS JUST A VALUABLE COMMODITY AND ALSO VERYYYYYY HARD TO GET FOR THE ONE EMBRACED ON THE WAY TO INCELDOM"

 

[bonedigger06]

full offense but no change has ever been made by conservatives like you
Caucasoids like you like to say "muh we were creators and inventors and sheeeit" to asians and pride yourselves in being a race that inherentlry pursues intellectual endeavors for their own sake (because muh high in trait openness to experience), while in the same breath chastising the political left for pursuing intellectual endeavors for their own sake (because they are the real trait openness to experience, while you conservatives score lower on that). Truth is, you take pride in something you are not, one of the very people you chastise are the people you look up to. dumbasses.

I have more than given this one thought, cogservatard

First of all
Ricecels once dominated a Advanced field of Civilization
A LONGGGGGGG TIME AGOOOOOOO
Now,it just Authoritative Dictatorship,Gooks and Waifu Worshippers in Small apartments( FOR THE GENERAL RICECELS NOT INCELS)
Brutal

 

[bonedigger06]

Incel = Chad

In a different Universe
But it's just BRUTALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Mogging everywhere

 

[bonedigger06]

again, you fucking retard. i'm not debunking it, I'm seareching for the proof rather than take the law of identity for granted, dipshit

You should YIn Yang your life
Because if you did
Then atleast you did not think that you have the HIGHEST IQ IN THE FORUM WHICH IS NOT
uwu

 

[lazy_gamer_423]

why can't it be any other thing?

because then the statement wouldn't be true anymore

 

[latinocelhispanicel]

because then the statement wouldn't be true anymore

I guess I'd be questioning the realm in which that resides. Either way, someone mentioned already that I'm alluding to the Hegelian dialectic. kinda cool to think that my very first abstract thought was a Jewish one