Re: Context vs Crackpotism

Ian Goddard (
Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:10:10 -0500

Anton Sherwood (

>> IAN: That's exactly what I'm saying with
>> respect to identity: there is no identity
>> external to context. Everything that exists
>> exists in context, and context is holistic.
>Wrong. There is no DESCRIPTION without context and contrast.
>Identity - "every thing is equal to itself" - needs neither.

IAN: You have failed to show a single
example of identity exterior to context,
therefore, proclaiming a separation between
identity and description is just a distraction.

Until a unit of atomized identity can be shown
to exist, your asking us to separate belief from
evidence, which is antithetical to the rational.

>> When I define identity
>> as "A is A relative to ~A," I put it
>> in context, as it exists in reality.
>And you wrench the word _identity_ away from how it has been defined and
>used for centuries, because you are too lazy to coin a more accurate
>term for what you're defining - and/or too much in love with the idea of
>yourself as Great Philosopher to adopt words that other people have used
>for what you call "identity", words like _description_ and
>_characteristics_ and _qualities_.

IAN: What I say is either true or false.
Rather than supporting your effort to topple
what I say with any verifiable evidence, you
engage in a variety of ad hominem and semantic
counters. All signs of a crackpot whose case is
falling apart but has not the guts to admit it.

I believe that "identity" can be loosely defined
as "what a thing is," and I believe that this fits
both my analysis of identity and the traditional use
of the term "identity." So your effort to remove the
term "identity" from the scope of my analysis fails.

VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ---->