Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent
there just is, i didn't decide anything. it's not something that can be explained. an explanation is a series of logical steps from the statement in question back to an axiom, which is ultimately unexplainable. why does x=x? why is a point indivisible? what is a point? if you define a point in terms of something else, you then have to ask, well what is that? ultimately you hit a zero-level where the mode of rational explanations no longer works, and it simply is what it is. and since reason breaks down at this point, if there is any way of "knowing" what that thing is, it has to be by "feeling" it.
|
You don't need to feel the law of identity. The law of identity can only be argued by being presented as itself. How is that not a logical argument. It is the basis of what constitutes logic.
What is outside of logic in rationality is no longer thought. When one decides to make life decisions by rolling the dice, he is not using his consciousness to decide. That is why we say he is not thinking about the decisions, but instead gambling.
Emotions and feelings arise out of the subconscious. They are not conscious decisions. It is still a gamble to choose on feelings because you are negating your consciousness.
The bottom line is, the only way to think consciously is to use reason and logic. The axioms that are established here, such as the law of identity, are established because they yield progress. You can't build a bridge questioning the law of identity. In fact, if you truly question the law of identity then you won't be anything. You will be voluntarilly unconscious.
The plague of post-modern philosophy is that they overcomplicated things. "Overcomplicated" may be a bad word to use, but what I mean is that they propose to be free thinkers, and in doing so they abandon the actual thinking process. They question ideas such as whether consciousness can be proven without using your consciousness. They either ask for this to be proven or they just give up and say that it can't. It can't, and the answer most have is to fall back on abandoning their consciousness in the hopes of some sort of transcendence. However, reverting to the subconscious shows the exact opposite results. If there is any hope of transcendence it must involve the use of rationality and logic, the consciousness.
tl;dr: One can only express A=A in the way it is expressed, but that doesn't make it less true. If anything, the questioning of it only further suggests that we need to have axioms. Otherwise we fall into uselessness.