http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes/fallacy/define/circle.htm
>Circular Definition
>
>Definition
>
>The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition.
>
>(A circular definition is a special case of a Failure to Elucidate.)
IAN: I cannot think of a more perfect example of
the crackpot fallacy of Circular Definition than the
crackpot definition of identity A=A. What the crackpot
definition of identity fails to elucidate is that id-
entity is not "same as," in fact, to the absolute
contrary, identity is "different than."
If the definition of identity is "same as," as one
finds in all dictionaries (even of philosophy and
logic), then since the Elephant Man (cannot recall
his proper name) was NOT the "same as" anyone, he
must have no identity, since identity is "same as."
Well, we can see why the A=A definition of identity
as "same as" is the "crackpot definition of identity,"
because it is irrational, illogcal, and clearly false.
Here's the Goddard non-crackpot identity defitnion:
IDENTITY: X possesses an identity and
can therefore be said to exist where
X stands out as different from some
state or quantity defined as not-X.
NOT-IDENTITY: X posses no identity and
cannot be said to exist where X is the
same as not-X, for there is then nothing
that is not-X, and thus no difference.
In short: Identity = difference
IDENTITY RULE: X gains identity by
difference and looses it by similarity.
****************************************************************
VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________
TWA-800 CASE CORE --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm
________________________________________________________________