Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The law of identity (A=A) is a necessary truth that grounds all predication and is not itself conventionally established.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Identity statements like A=A are trivial tautologies that express linguistic convention about how we use names, not deep metaphysical truths.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In quantum mechanics and paraconsistent logic, classical identity principles fail, showing A=A is not universally necessary but context-dependent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.We could adopt alternative logical systems where identity is graded or relational without incoherence, proving A=A is not uniquely foundational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Without A=A, we cannot distinguish any object from itself, making predication logically impossible and discourse incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The law of identity holds in all possible worlds and languages, suggesting it reflects reality itself rather than human convention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Denying A=A requires using the law to formulate the denial, making it self-refuting and unfalsifiable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.