BrianW

The equation we're discussing is P=P. It has no variable. Don't try to change the subject. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to prove your prime t...

Modern greek for word is 'lexi'. Logic is derived from logos, which is ancient greek (perhaps ionian) for 'word', 'reason' or 'plan'. AGAIN, YOUR INTE...

The equation P=P has no variable. AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG!

It seems you are trying to argue that semantics contradicts logic. That won't work either.

Not yet proven! NO. Not yet proven!

P does not change, it is replaced (on both sides of the equation). There is a difference between a place holder and a variable in mathematics. A place...

P=P is self-referencing because the premise automatically leads to the conclusion. So far, I haven't seen you prove any of your prime triadic nonsense...

NO! P is not a variable. It is a place holder. GOTCHYA! You argued that your logic (your grand prime triadic nonsense) holds because of self-referenci...

You are WRONG again. This law is the basis of self-reference, that is P=P.

This is just stupid word salad to confuse yourself. The definition of a cow cannot be equal to the definition of a ball. Your interpretation only conf...

From the explanation I gave on the Law of Non-contradiction, it states that reality does not contradict itself. ONLY PEOPLE'S INTERPRETATIONS ARE CONT...

Stop playing the fool! Because P=P represents any and all phenomena and experience in reality, therefore the logic holds for everything. That is what ...

The Law of Identity states that: Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristic...

There's nothing equivocal about practical experience because it refers to something you've clearly and distinctly participated in. Sorry, no hiding be...

No matter the progression of thought, isn't the premise that, you think? Do you doubt that?

=> So what? How does this manifest in reality or phenomena? => Again, so what? How does this manifest in reality or phenomena? And again, you get the ...

My explanations of logic are grounded in "phenomena", "reality" and "existence". Isn't that practical enough? If you want you can insert any example. ...

LOGIC Some sources relate it with reason others with principles inherent in the function or expression of reality and its many aspects. For example: 1...

Sorry, I did not know the 'reproduction' example was your reply. I will give mine shortly. Please be patient.

Do you agree with my proposition or not? If you believe you're right then it should not be a problem. So, what is your reply?

If we show how our logic applies to practical life then there can be no contradictions when experience itself is proof of its reliability. It doesn't ...

Let us have one final argument in support of our points and let them stand on their own merit. We should not have any further statements after them wh...

How about we each show the validity of of our logic by how it presents in practical life? This means using points of reference which are proofs and th...

As I have said, their connection or relation is that of correspondence, not whatever meaning you want to attach to it.

Please don't misquote me. I said the three laws inference each other. This means that each of the three laws reach the same conclusion and therefore p...

I think, perhaps egotism and its many contributory factors. Like, arrogance and over-ambition or an inordinate fixation towards something (a kind of a...

Why are we still arguing? I may not know every philosopher but I know with certitude that every field of knowledge is based upon premises which do not...

UNDOUBTEDLY!!!

Well then, consider me amazed. Either all philosophers who adhere to those laws of logic are blind making you the only sighted philosopher or... Adieu

What happened to having sources? I seem to have given you quite a few. So, when do I get yours?

Arguing contradiction is a logical conclusion is the fallacy which is being highlighted. That you can't realise that shows I should not waste any more...

Do you see any "=" in the explanation given for law of identity? Stop dreaming, pinch yourself and wake up. There is no hiding behind misunderstood eq...

Then, it is as I said before, you are using unfounded premises which are deemed fallacious by every law of logic. Hence, illogical.

4. On Contradictions (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Contradiction.html) Contradiction A contradiction arises when two ideas each m...

Before I proceed to the law of non-contradiction, something you might want to understand: 3. Irrational Epistemology (http://www.importanceofphilosoph...

2. The Law of Identity (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html) A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity Everything that exists ha...

Now, on to your fallacies: 1. What is an axiom (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html) Axiom An axiom is an irreducible primary...

Where and how have you arrived at this? Where and how have you arrived at this? Where and how have you arrived at this? This only applied to those thr...

This is my interpretation. However merriam-webster says, the formal principles of a branch of knowledge. I've given that explanation because I've dedu...

Logic is the realisation of the laws which govern phenomena. Because they are derived from perception of phenomena, they leave little to faults. The f...

Not true. Again, you're confounding phenomena with the laws which govern them. I can present a rabbit as proof of its existence but it won't exist for...

Eastern and Western philosophies describe different circumstances. On the few points of intersection they have, they agree unequivocally.

That's a concept. It is not something he proved, rather, hypothesized. Are you implying that's what you were doing? What laws? Not true. Else, prove i...

First, every book that deals with perception. Secondly, every description given falls under those limits. Thirdly, the laws of logic - all of them whi...

What sources? Have you perceived formless, causeless, nothing?

Not multiple logics or laws of logic. I'm asking for multiple and distinctly varied interpretations of those logics or laws of logics. If you have the...

No. To keep you from attempting to pull wool over my eyes. You want proof? Everything we perceive is an identity, form, influence, condition, activity...

The laws of logic do not have multiple and varied connotations. Otherwise they would not be laws or principles. What they have is multiple application...

I would welcome any definitive statement from any of the philosophers you've mentioned which contradicts the laws of logic or which finds them contrad...

Is this new information? How did you come by this premise? No. Agreement is not the foundation of logic. Agreement is the sign of validity or acceptan...