A is A and the Law of Causality: Basic Metaphysics
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 7 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
A is A and the Law of Causality: Basic Metaphysics
A is A is Aristotle's Law of Identity. Rand adopted this as a basic axiom. It is one of the cornerstones of Objectivism. The law states that everything that exists has a specific, particular nature. Every thing one perceives has characteristics that are inherent in its nature. These characteristics are apprehended and can be described. An entity may be described as smooth, blue, round, etc. A person may be tall, slim, and intelligent. These traits give an entity its identity. The particular traits or characteristics are not important. The number of traits is not important. The fact that every entity has traits is what matters.
An entity without form, without traits, is a non-entity. It does not exist. It would be nothing. To exist is to have identity. Identity is the concept of the aspects of existence. Existence requires something to exist as a particular something, with a particular identity. It can not have multiple identities. It is what it is and can be nothing else. A horse is not a camel and a house is not an automobile. Every characteristic of a specific entity is part of its identity.
There can be no contradictions. Entities can not be one thing and another simultaneously. Explicit in the concept of identity is the corollary that reality has a specific nature. Having a definite nature and an identity means it is knowable. Existing according to its nature and identity is without contradictions.
Man has fallible perceptions and can perceive an entity rightly or wrongly, but the entity itself is not subject to one's perceptions or whims. It is what it is. The characteristics of its existence are not subject to the will of man. If a color blind man cannot perceive properly, the color of an entity, it does not change the true nature or color of the entity. A magician and an observer see the same event, but only the magician has the better perspective and understanding. Either way, knowledge of the characteristics of an entity is independent of its nature; its nature is what it is, whether someone or no one knows it.
The Law of Causality is also a fundamental law essential to Objectivism. It is related to the Law of Identity. It is the result of the interactions of entities, or the action of a single entity, having identity, applied over time. Actions, identified are the result of the Law of Causality. No action can occur without an entity. Action, presupposes existence of an entity for an action to occur or exist.
Actions themselves have a particular nature and depend upon the entity or entities' individual identity and characteristics. Action is the change of a particular characteristic of an entity. If a moon changes location while it orbits its planet, it has changed, but it is bound to the nature of its characteristics and those of the other objects involved. The gravity, mass, speed, etc., are factors and characteristics of the entities involved which the actions are dependent upon. Actions change the nature of an entity, but only within the confines of the nature of the entity or entities involved in the action. They cannot produce an action contrary to their nature. Change is dependent upon and determined by the properties of the entities involved whether the action is momentary or continual. For example: A body such as a moon may impact another body and stop or it may bounce off and continue on a new path, continuously changing characteristic of location or speed. For something to change it must be acted upon by some prior action. This is a cause- thus the term Causality.
A change is an effect of a cause or action. A cause is the result of a prior cause or causes, and each cause is the result of and dependent upon the specific nature of the agents and their identities that affect the change. Newton's laws of motion are a good example.
The Law of Identity and the Law of Causality are interrelated. According to objectivist metaphysics all existents in existence are subject to these laws. The law of Identity declares that all existents are real, with identifiable attributes, but not subject to one's apprehension. Existence exists and the Law of Causality explains the means by which that which exists operates. These laws are the essential foundation for a philosophy congruent with logic.
Objectivism: More of the Basics
Introducing Objectivism - Rand's own words in less than ten minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VSBG...
"Reality exists as an objective absolute. Facts are facts." Ayn Rand (Time frame 2:24)
Respectfully,
O.A.
Addendum: A is A (though commonly referred to as Aristotle's law of identity) has been claimed by some to be more properly attributed to Gottfried Lebnitz, while the law of non-contradiction is that of Aristotle.
Regardless, together they are essential elements of the law of identity.
A is A is Aristotle's Law of Identity. Rand adopted this as a basic axiom. It is one of the cornerstones of Objectivism. The law states that everything that exists has a specific, particular nature. Every thing one perceives has characteristics that are inherent in its nature. These characteristics are apprehended and can be described. An entity may be described as smooth, blue, round, etc. A person may be tall, slim, and intelligent. These traits give an entity its identity. The particular traits or characteristics are not important. The number of traits is not important. The fact that every entity has traits is what matters.
An entity without form, without traits, is a non-entity. It does not exist. It would be nothing. To exist is to have identity. Identity is the concept of the aspects of existence. Existence requires something to exist as a particular something, with a particular identity. It can not have multiple identities. It is what it is and can be nothing else. A horse is not a camel and a house is not an automobile. Every characteristic of a specific entity is part of its identity.
There can be no contradictions. Entities can not be one thing and another simultaneously. Explicit in the concept of identity is the corollary that reality has a specific nature. Having a definite nature and an identity means it is knowable. Existing according to its nature and identity is without contradictions.
Man has fallible perceptions and can perceive an entity rightly or wrongly, but the entity itself is not subject to one's perceptions or whims. It is what it is. The characteristics of its existence are not subject to the will of man. If a color blind man cannot perceive properly, the color of an entity, it does not change the true nature or color of the entity. A magician and an observer see the same event, but only the magician has the better perspective and understanding. Either way, knowledge of the characteristics of an entity is independent of its nature; its nature is what it is, whether someone or no one knows it.
The Law of Causality is also a fundamental law essential to Objectivism. It is related to the Law of Identity. It is the result of the interactions of entities, or the action of a single entity, having identity, applied over time. Actions, identified are the result of the Law of Causality. No action can occur without an entity. Action, presupposes existence of an entity for an action to occur or exist.
Actions themselves have a particular nature and depend upon the entity or entities' individual identity and characteristics. Action is the change of a particular characteristic of an entity. If a moon changes location while it orbits its planet, it has changed, but it is bound to the nature of its characteristics and those of the other objects involved. The gravity, mass, speed, etc., are factors and characteristics of the entities involved which the actions are dependent upon. Actions change the nature of an entity, but only within the confines of the nature of the entity or entities involved in the action. They cannot produce an action contrary to their nature. Change is dependent upon and determined by the properties of the entities involved whether the action is momentary or continual. For example: A body such as a moon may impact another body and stop or it may bounce off and continue on a new path, continuously changing characteristic of location or speed. For something to change it must be acted upon by some prior action. This is a cause- thus the term Causality.
A change is an effect of a cause or action. A cause is the result of a prior cause or causes, and each cause is the result of and dependent upon the specific nature of the agents and their identities that affect the change. Newton's laws of motion are a good example.
The Law of Identity and the Law of Causality are interrelated. According to objectivist metaphysics all existents in existence are subject to these laws. The law of Identity declares that all existents are real, with identifiable attributes, but not subject to one's apprehension. Existence exists and the Law of Causality explains the means by which that which exists operates. These laws are the essential foundation for a philosophy congruent with logic.
Objectivism: More of the Basics
Introducing Objectivism - Rand's own words in less than ten minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VSBG...
"Reality exists as an objective absolute. Facts are facts." Ayn Rand (Time frame 2:24)
Respectfully,
O.A.
Addendum: A is A (though commonly referred to as Aristotle's law of identity) has been claimed by some to be more properly attributed to Gottfried Lebnitz, while the law of non-contradiction is that of Aristotle.
Regardless, together they are essential elements of the law of identity.
I am going to try to produce more of these types of blogs in the future, because I feel the same as you. Galt willing... :)
Regards,
O.A.
Hume was wrong and in my opinion is undeserving of the title of empiricist. He twisted and distorted empiricism. His example that generalizations based on inductive reasoning are false stands only because he is willing to draw generalizations. A generalization is always subject to error. He argued that if a person observes many white swans, but no black ones, they might conclude that all swans are white, but that would be an assumption. That is a bridge too far. He argued that no matter how many times one observes something the next time it may turn out differently, but again that is irrelevant, because it just means he has not yet observed all instances or collected all data, thus proving only that generalizations can be faulty. All the while despite one's personal observations such as the white swan example, the black swan exists independent of observation.
As for the quantum physics question, one might consider it an anomaly, or the exception that proves the rule, but I still maintain that though at the atomic level entities demonstrate changing states that apparently defy classical physics, they still operate according to their nature and can not do otherwise, even if we do not fully understand what that nature is. Like the question of whether light is a particle or a wave... there is duality... In any case since I live in the macro world; any exception to these classical physics on the atomic level should not affect my course of action, or understanding of the macro world I operate in. Thus, my philosophy serves me well. :)
Is this a satisfactory answer?
Regards,
O.A.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm...
https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/l...
I was not asking a question, but enjoyed your input. As for the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the physicists responsible purposed interpreted the experiments to get these result. Wiener Heisenberg admits this in his book Philosophy and Physics. The CIQM is leading to more and more nonsense - dark matter, dark energy, black holes all around us, etc.
Hume's white swan example violates the law of identity. Lots of things are white, why would you choose that as the defining characteristic ? For more see https://hallingblog.com/2016/02/06/ar...
Excellent. I concur. Your arguments regarding perfect knowledge and probable knowledge get right to the heart of the matter.
Regards,
O.A.
When black swans were discovered, they were called just that: black swans, not something else. They were properly integrated into their class.
BTW: The exception does not prove the rule. That is a common misstatement only more sophisticated than "irregardless" and "Valentimes Day." Everyone says it, but they do not know what they are saying. The word prove in older English only meant "to test" similar to our word "probe" whence "problem" and "probation." Logically, an exception to a rule does not validate the rule.
Thank you. I know the reference/link I provided does have the proper meaning listed among the others. I am not in the habit of underestimating and insulting the intelligence of our members... I trust they can gather proper meaning without a philosophy dictionary.
Regards,
O.A.
I'll tell you what Mike, I am feeling particularly magnanimous today and since you are such a stickler for detail... I will make an addendum to my original post and provide more satisfactory attribution for A is A and the law of non-contradiction. Now, if you would just stop the ad hominem and pedantry, I, along with others, would be most appreciative when we are not being insulted with your erroneous estimation of our mental inferiority.
Indeed. Serious food for thought. I'm afraid as much as it interests me, I only have a basic understanding of the fundamentals. I must defer to those more knowledgeable about such matters. From what I can gather, there is still much debate among them and theories yet to be proven definitively. Perhaps statistical probability is all we can hope for within our present capacity/instrumentality. Tomorrow is another day.
Respectfully,
O.A.
You can find students of Objectivism with degrees in physics and related fields who accept or deny some or all of quantum mechanics. The field is open for discovery. I will point out that "Schrödinger's Cat" is often misunderstood as a statement of Heisenberg indeterminancy, but Schrödinger was with Einstein on that and suggested the Cat only as a reductio ad absurdum of Heisenberg indeterminancy.
Among the arguments that you can have with Objectivist physicists is whether or not GPS actually depends on Einstein's special relativity. (I have no dog in that hunt.)
Yes that is a manifestation... also an astute observation.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I have one nuanced variation on your recap that I might add; and I am currently pondering this, have encountered it recently in a nice little book on applied epistemology for the non-philosopher entitled "The Whys Way to Success and Happiness by Betsy Speicher, a fellow Objectivist. (I found the book to be over-pedantic for me, but containing a few nice, nuggets, clarifications and applications, btw)
She proposes that a cause of anything is not and action or an entity; rather, causes are always particular characteristics of entities or actions. Through various examples, she presents a worthwhile case and at least show the value of that distinction in the methods of determining causes.
I will add that book to my list. It sounds quite interesting.
Respectfully,
O.A.
"Entities can not be one thing and another simultaneously. Explicit in the concept of identity is the corollary that reality has a specific nature."
Indeed. This is critical. Take politics as one example.
Much of the new left derives from a kind of amalgamation of the old left. Rand describes the differences well, as I recall. The new left does not posit class struggle not from an economic perspective (i.e. capitalist vs. proletariat), but from an racial, ethnic, linguistic, gender, gender preference, environmental, or other perspective. Yet the new left continues to be based in the old left's method. The method, specifically, is a dialectic process. In this process, a "social construct" (here lacking a better phrase) is negated. This negation is then supported with certain examples and negated vocabularies.
"Animal rights", "environmental justice", "economic justice", and "working class solidarity" are common phrases. But, as we agree, A is A. Rights are properties of conceptual beings. Animals do not have rights. Justice is achieved within a court system. A court system is a political entity. The environment itself has no political status. There is no environmental justice beyond the protection of property rights. Solidarity is unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group. Yet individuals who have multiple characteristics belongs to multiple groups. Not every person who works belongs to the "working class"? An analogous question: Not every verifiable scientific claim belongs to "science", but is perhaps "Jewish science"?
The point here is that A is A, the law of identity, means that a thing is what it is and is not what it is not. But it also means that reason, logic, and definitions unlock the correct method of identification. Without it, we are left to a chaos where the ethical treatment of animals, environmental science, civil courts, and manual laborers receive not proper philosophy, but the very disintegration the new left intends.
"It can not have multiple identities." Agreed. Even bipolar people have a particular, albeit unfortunate, set of characteristics defined by the term "bipolar". (The phrase "manic depressive" is not per se a contradiction in terms in that mania is not necessarily elation and depression is not necessarily sadness.)
Thank you for your thought provoking examples and applications. They add flavor, to what could be to some, rather dull material.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Social Construct: Animal rights as a non-example (lack of a better word) regarding rights are properties of conceptual beings. I am a conceptual being, therefore, I have rights, and I know that I have rights, rights given to me by my very existence as a conceptual being. Animals are unable to conceptualize what rights are, but does this leave them without rights as animals? In essence, if my morality dictates that Animals' rights are real, then I will acknowledge as such. Statement of my morality: Entities that exist and are perceived as living have an inherent right to life due to their very own nature to live. That right does not need to be protected or enforced by myself or others, but nevertheless it ought to be acknowledged as such.
Now, help me understand the fallacies in my argument, so that I may have a better understanding moving forward with these concepts.
Thanks in advance,
Mike
Although you have addressed rbroberg, I shall endeavor to help you.
"The climax (to date) of the campaign against "rights" is the detachment of the concept from the human species altogether, i.e., the claim that animals have rights.
Rights are moral rules enjoining persuasion as against coercion, and there is no way of applying morality to the amoral or persuasion to the nonconceptual. An animal needs no validation of its behavior; it does not act by right or by permission; it perceives objects, then simply reacts as it must. In dealing with such organisms, there is no applicable law but the law of the jungle, the law of force against force.
An animal (by nature) is concerned only with its survival; man (by choice) must be concerned only with his-- which requires that he establish dominance over the lower species. Some of these are threats to his life and must be exterminated; others serve as sources of food or clothing, as subjects of medical research, even as objects of recreation or surrogate friendship (pets). By its nature and throughout the animal kingdom, life survives by feeding on life. To demand that man defer to the "rights" of other species is to deprive man himself of the right to life. This is "other-ism," i.e., altruism, gone mad.
A man must respect the freedom of human beings for a selfish reason; he stands to benefit enormously from their rational actions. But a man gains nothing from respecting the "freedom" of animals; on the contrary, such a policy would seriously jeopardize his survival. How can man morally inflict pain on other species or treat them as means to his own ends? He can do it. Objectivism replies, when such treatment is necessary or advisable as judged by the standard of morality; he can do it because man's needs are the root of the concept "moral." The source of rights, as of virtues, is not the sensory perceptual level of consciousness, but the conceptual level. The source is not the capacity to feel pain, but the capacity to think.
There are no rights to the labor of other men, and no right of groups, parts, or nonhumans. There are only the rights of man, his right to pursue on his own a certain course of action." Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pg. 358
More: http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresul...
Respectfully,
O.A.
Mike
Is that necessarily true? Does the fission of element 235U require the action with a neutron to fission into two other elements (many possible results) and go out of existence or can the act of fission happen without being acted upon. There are many things which change with time without needing to be acted upon by a previous action, e.g., an oscillating clock reaction where a fluid will periodically change to four different colors over and over until the chemicals in solution are fully used. Nothing other than the composition of the solution was necessary to cause the action no prior action, unless the mixing of the solution can be considered the prior action.
The main thing is that 'A is A' is static at a particular time while 'identity' is not static in that it can change within ranges for each property depending upon the action. Concepts are define without specifying, other than generally, the ranges of values of relationships in their definitions. Causality basically says that nature is consistent but not that there cannot be any actions that cannot be in a cause and effect relation.
In each of your examples is it not the internal components working upon each other according to their nature? Change simply being measured in time? Many things change over time... Things decay... The fact that they are changing proves that some action has occurred which you are able to perceive in time.
Respectfully,
O.A.
We have theories and probabilities. What is lacking is certainty. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/cer...
Evidence, incontrovertible, empirical, proof. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pro...
Proof that can be corroborated by our senses. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/per...
We are now drifting well into epistemology... "[Man’s] senses do not provide him with automatic knowledge in separate snatches independent of context, but only with the material of knowledge, which his mind must learn to integrate. . . . His senses cannot deceive him, . . . physical objects cannot act without causes, . . . his organs of perception are physical and have no volition, no power to invent or to distort . . . the evidence they give him is an absolute, but his mind must learn to understand it, his mind must discover the nature, the causes, the full context of his sensory material, his mind must identify the things that he perceives."_ Galt's speech. To suggest there is no reason, or cause for an event may only mean we have yet to discover it. It may only be a product of our limited capacity/knowledge. Proving there is no cause is not incumbent upon me and sounds like a greater challenge. Either way, these laws are a sound foundation for a philosophy that directs one's life in the macro level and just as useful as Newtonian physics.
Right or wrong, that is what I believe.
Respectfully,
O.A.
P.S. I had to edit and repost this reply. I originally mistakenly typed something that was imprecise and contrary to what I meant to express.
Thanks for your bright, concise analysis of these fundamental principles. Your post is wonderful for me as a student of the objectivist philosophy. The video provided in Ayn's own words will now become a part of my daily mental exercise .I will listen to it with a feeling of joy , having the basis of my existence to be my own self interest.
I have a question if you would be so kind. There are many things that I feel good and happy about , such as personal freedom, accomplishment, working towards a goal ,discovery , comprehension, learning ,athletics , family ,social interactions with like minded folks , but I also find joy in mentoring and sharing my experience and knowledge hopefully assisting other people on my own terms. I don't think that I am unique in that type of charity. In fact it is a unique and wonderful feeling, very satisfying that a person who assists someone else gets. I think that behavior is totally compatible with the premise of self-interest .
Critics see ethical self-interest as just greed.
The question is.
Why don't the critics understand that objectivist's can be Generous and charitable and are just as interested in the people's well-being?
Is it because they ignore the ethical part?
With respect,
DOB
I believe they have been long inculcated with a twisted sense of morality that revolves around altruism and a singular connotation of the word selfish. Perhaps this is why Rand's book, The Virtue of Selfishness, is so essential to the understanding and clarifying of the distinctions between their conception of selfishness and the ethical bedrock of self interest, and the true egoist.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sel...
Regards,
O.A.
Epistemology: How do we know? Which is primary, existence or consciousness?
Ethics: If consciousness is to be primary, then whose consciousness is to rule, yours, or mine? (Or perhaps I have a whole gang, making up a "group" consciousness. Or a Higher Power consciousness that rules over us from Above.) If--on the other hand-- existence is primary, then what methods should we be using to live our lives? How can we know? (Back to epistemology for the answer.)
Politics: How are we to interact with each other? Should there be individual liberty, or not? In the creation of some system of government, which we can call "the state," does it exist to serve the individual, or does the individual exist to serve the state? (Another way of stating this dichotomy is the witticism, "If you cannot OWN property, then you ARE property.")
It is particularly enlightening for Objectivists to read not only the words of Rand, but the books by Aristotle. His answers to the questions of ethics and politics do not match those of Objectivism, but cover the same issues in a way that can seem modern to us, especially when compared to most of the more mystical tracts, both ancient and modern.
To me, Aristotle appears to be working on correcting the errors of Plato.
Aristotle's "Ethics" is very accessible to the modern mind, and interestingly answers the question of slavery by suggesting the requirements for ending it--"when the looms weave themselves and the mines dig themselves" in one translation. James Watt's practical steam engine thus freed the slaves.
I quite agree. Some of Aristotle's work can be quite challenging, but gathering what you can is definitely a worthy endeavor. I agree on Aristotle's "Ethics" it is one of the more accessible, especially if provided one of the better translations.
Respectfully,
O.A.
For the convenience of anyone interested in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics:
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nic...
Respectfully,
O.A.
Who says? There is a metaphysical axiom whose truth is dependent on the unknowable noumena, the source of perceptions. Unknowable, so the axiom escapes verification and is dependent on perception.
"A Spoon is Like a Headache. This is a dangerous idea in sheep's clothing. It consumes decrepit ontology, preserves methodological naturalism, and inspires exploration for a new ontology, a vehicle sufficiently robust to sustain the next leg of our search for a theory of everything." ~ https://www.edge.org/response-detail/...
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/ar...
Is their objective certainty in metaphysical axioms that is NEVER invalidated by observations?
Point being that existence depends on a rapid and veridical response to perceptions in a dog eat dog world until the time binding aspects of information in language and writing enable information to be passed between generations and centuries.
Reasoned thought (Bayes Theorem) and scientific process in theory, experimental, and engineering branches example movement beyond the strictly genetic inheritance of survival to breeding which evolution alone gives its "blessing."
Objectivism functions to give thoughtful species reproductive advantage in the macro-world and quantum theory with Bayes in the areas of incomplete knowledge that promotes a timely learning that enables survival until genetics can "lock" an environmental adaptation. Baldwin Effect http://satirist.org/learn-game/inspir...
"Who says?" Every philosopher since the beginning of time that is categorized as a realist (ascribes to realism).
Two philosophers, a realist and an idealist are walking down the sidewalk talking and the idealist says there is no evidence that things exist outside of the mind- that there is no evidence that his dining room table exists at all until he is in the room and observes it; then again, it is only in his mind. The realist, hearing this, slows a half step and promptly thumps the idealist on the back of the head with his cane. The idealist protests and asks why the realist struck him with his cane. The Realist replies, but you did not see the cane strike your head, so it must be all in your mind... :)
I read this story in one of my philosophy books and had to share it. I have undoubtedly paraphrased it since I do not recall exactly where and in which book I read it.
I'm afraid I do not put much stock in the philosophy of idealists. It appears to me as navel gazing sophistry.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philoso...
You may find one side or the other persuasive; I know where I stand and where objectivist metaphysics lead me.
Respectfully,
O.A.
No need for examples. I understand the extraordinary actions of things on the atomic level do not appear to adhere to classical physics and probability is better, or the best we can currently accomplish in predicting their actions. Please refer to the above commentary between myself, dbhalling and CBJ. I believe we have addressed this issue sufficiently. The utility and validity of these rules in the macro world in which we operate have not been proven false. In other words, what I find of import is that we live in the macro world and these laws serve us well in that world. A new understanding or perhaps exceptions to the rules may be required for things in the micro world, but that is something for others beyond my capacity to determine.
I quite agree that "The use of Quantum Mechanics is hardly an idealistic endeavor."
Respectfully,
O.A.
I did my own research. Like a good student, I did not plagiarize and use their exact wording, but translated the material into my own different wording that would convey the same messages. I have studied Aristotle and I know of the link to Leibniz and the differing opinions. They are immaterial to the lessons. Before writing this article I did review/consult entries on both of these laws from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand- Peikoff, The Ayn Rand Lexicon, imoportanceofphilosophy.com, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online, and informationphilosopher.com. I don't know what you call research, but in my world that is.
As for A is A, you might be interested in this link, http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...
I am not unique in recognizing the pre-existing foundation of Leibniz's claim. In fact according to some sources, in some form it was recognized and recorded as early as Plato's dialogue Theaetetus (185a).
(1) "Ayn said the same things as other philosophers on this matter too... So what?" Actually, while you can find similar ideas all along the route to the present - the works of Willem Quine, for instance; the Catholic scholasticism of Cadinal Désiré-Félicien-François-Joseph Mercier, also - Ayn Rand pretty much figured this all out for herself. Her journals have been published and she was a voracious reader. She did not work in a vacuum. However, Ayn Rand did not just take bits and pieces from a lot of other people and glue them into a philosophy.
(2) Ayn Rand did not like Leibniz because his rationalism (which as bad enough) tended to idealism (which is fatal). She disliked him so much that she never mentioned him. But "A is A" was Leibniz's formulation, not Aristotle's; and that's a fact.
(3) Man has fallible perceptions and can perceive an entity rightly or wrongly... It is arguable that any misperceptions happen in the brain or the mind, not in the sensory organs themselves. Our amusing so-called "optical illusions" seem to be culturally learned and not inherent in human perception. Ten teams of anthropologists took these and other experiences from our culture out to other cultures including nominally isolated tribes and found that so-called "primitive" are not misled.
It is an axiom of Objectivist epistemology that we perceive reality as it is. Errors are the result of percept formation or concept formation, not of perception, which is always immediate. Your innocent claim of our fallible senses was easily accepted by everyone else here. That indicates an emotional, non-judgmental conformance of opinion: groupthink.
2. I will accede to the fact that Leibniz first coined the term A is A and published his formulation. However the concept preceded him and is a necessary precurser and is implicit in Aristotle's non-contradiction. Without identity there can be no contradiction. There is nothing. Attribution is immaterial to the lesson, but if it pleases fine. Sleep well Leibniz.
3. Yes. This is all spelled out in Introduction to Objectivist Epitemology. Again, the word perception has more than one connotation. One is related to the apprehension of the mind... a mental image: concept. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...
Your last paragraph: Again see 3. above (ref. perception). Also, re-read the beginning of my fourth paragraph. I wrote "Man has fallible perceptions" not fallible senses. Do not besmirch the intelligence of "everyone else here." If I wrote what you said I did somewhere else (though I can't seem to find it) it was in error. Generally I find your criticisms in this case to be akin to the logical fallacy of nit-picking. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/t...
GHB: Gamma Hydroxybutyrate (C4H8O3) is a central nervous system (CNS) depressant that is commonly referred to as a “club drug” or “date rape” drug.???
GHB: Bug Out Bag vs. Get Home Bag. A lot of people are talking about bug out bags these days. People want to be prepared for disaster when it strikes ... ?
GHB: George Herbert Bush ???