Not "through." "X qua x"--"x 'as x itself'"
In other words, not an impression of x or anything else like that. X itself.
Saying "x" itself is not the same as "x" qua "x". One shows one x the other two x's. "x" qua "x" shows multiple "x's" and with multiple "x's" showing multiple times and spaces which define both x's thus showing a degree of non-equality.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:10 amNot "through." "X qua x"--"x 'as x itself'"
In other words, not an impression of x or anything else like that. X itself.
Mentioning is a form of use.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:49 am I've never met someone who had a harder time with use and mention.
Tell me how something can be the same as itself without resulting in multiplicity. Equality is multiplicity.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:49 amI've never met someone who had a harder time with use and mention.
If something is equal it is equal to something else. Equality observes two phenomenon with the same nature. Tell me how something can be the same as itself without resulting in multiplicity.
Tell me how something can be the same as itself without resulting in multiplicity.
The point would be that something "and itself" wouldn't be something and something else, would it?
1 and 1 is 2. The keep term is "and".Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:29 amThe point would be that something "and itself" wouldn't be something and something else, would it?
When you do addition, such as 1+1=2, do you believe that you're adding something to itself? For example, are you "adding" an apple to the very same apple?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:17 am1 and 1 is 2. The keep term is "and".Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:29 amThe point would be that something "and itself" wouldn't be something and something else, would it?
When you say something "and itself" are you not dividing the phenomenon by stating "and"? How can "and" refer to anything other than something else?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:17 amWhen you do addition, such as 1+1=2, do you believe that you're adding something to itself? For example, are you "adding" an apple to the very same apple?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:17 am1 and 1 is 2. The keep term is "and".Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:29 am
The point would be that something "and itself" wouldn't be something and something else, would it?
And again, do you think that you're adding an apple to the same apple? That's a yes or no question just in case it's beyond your cognitive abilities to recognize a yes or no question.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:12 pmWhen you say something "and itself" are you not dividing the phenomenon by stating "and"? How can "and" refer to anything other than something else?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:17 amWhen you do addition, such as 1+1=2, do you believe that you're adding something to itself? For example, are you "adding" an apple to the very same apple?
It is not a yes or no question given "maybe" is the third option.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:56 pmAnd again, do you think that you're adding an apple to the same apple? That's a yes or no question just in case it's beyond your cognitive abilities to recognize a yes or no question.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:12 pmWhen you say something "and itself" are you not dividing the phenomenon by stating "and"? How can "and" refer to anything other than something else?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:17 am
When you do addition, such as 1+1=2, do you believe that you're adding something to itself? For example, are you "adding" an apple to the very same apple?