Show Just One Example

Ian Goddard (
Sun, 22 Mar 1998 00:07:27 -0500

Anton Sherwood (

> >> As I've shown many times, the definition of identity
> >> "A=A" is the crackpot fallacy of Circular Definition:

>If a definition is fallacious for including a paraphrase of
>the word defined, then *all* definitions are fallacious. And
>yet they're still useful.

IAN: A definition is useful IF it puts
the defined in context, IF it defines
the relations of the defined to things
that are different than it. The "A=A"
definition of A does not do that, it
seeks to remove A from context, and thus
seeks to nullify its identity to the ex-
tent its identity is derived from differ-
ential relation, which it is by 100%.

We can go around and around about identity,
but the shortcut is to simply show me the
proof, show me A that is A free from not-A.
That's all you need to do. You don't need
to call me names or get mad, just prove it.
I've tired to and having failed to do so,
accepted that the identity of A is not the
"same as" A, but rather, A is the difference
between A and not-A, and I didn't get upset.

You've tried to do that, and like my own
effort, your examples of "free identities"
have only evidenced examples of holistic
identities. If you cannot find any example
of any identity or any attribute of any
identity that is not derived from differ-
ential relation but from "same-as relation,"
then you must admit that the "same-as"
definition of identity is false, irra-
tional, and thus definitionally crackpot.

A is A not because A is the same as A,
A is A because A is different than not-A.

We've been through this in the past, you
never found a single example to support the
atomist-identity theory you believe then and
you still cannot find even one example now
and yet here you are still clinging to it.
How is it that some people can believe in
that for which there is 100% no evidence?

VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ---->