Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:35 pm x through x is x existing as x.

Not "through." "X qua x"--"x 'as x itself'"

In other words, not an impression of x or anything else like that. X itself.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:10 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:35 pm x through x is x existing as x.

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.

Tell me how something can be the same as itself without resulting in multiplicity. Equality is multiplicity.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:54 am Saying "x" itself is not the same as "x" qua "x". One shows one x the other two x's.

I've never met someone who had a harder time with use and mention.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:49 am I've never met someone who had a harder time with use and mention.

Mentioning is a form of use.

All philosophers are incredibly confused about identity.

You are doing this thing all Philosophers do where you are inventing time outside of time.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:49 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:54 am Saying "x" itself is not the same as "x" qua "x". One shows one x the other two x's.

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.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:39 pm Equality is multiplicity.

That must be the new math.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:39 pm Equality is multiplicity.

That must be the new math.

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.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:59 pm

If something is equal it is equal to something else.

Per?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:58 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:59 pm

If something is equal it is equal to something else.

Per?

Tell me how something can be the same as itself without resulting in multiplicity.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:08 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:58 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:59 pm

If something is equal it is equal to something else.

Per?

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?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:08 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:58 pm

Per?

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".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:17 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:08 am

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".

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?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:17 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:17 am

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?

1 and 1 is 2. The keep term is "and".

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?

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?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:12 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:17 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:17 am
1 and 1 is 2. The keep term is "and".

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?

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?

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.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:56 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:12 pm

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?

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?

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.

It is not a yes or no question given "maybe" is the third option.

Can an apple and an apple be the same apple? In one respect yes in another no.