In Hegel's words, "Identity is the identity of identity and non-identity.", which seems to suggest that what something is, is dependent also on
what isn't it for the full description of its identity. And I have to agree that this is true, since a description - a full description - includes
some level of comparison between the "it" being described and whatever else exists that can lend that description some contrast, or at least some
Then, there's this;
The indiscernibility of identicals
For any x and y, if x is identical to y, then x and y have all the same properties.
as opposed to
The identity of indiscernibles
For any x and y, if x and y have all the same properties, then x is identical to y.
which doesn't do much more than state that some things can be theoretically identical, even if the description is reworded slightly (although the 2nd
wording raised some controversy - for some reason). But that's not what I'm looking for. I want to find out how to accurately describe Identity. I
don't care about whether things can be identical or not.
So, what is Identity itself? It obviously exists, even if it's not physical. Is it an objective aspect of reality? I believe that it is, since
observation isn't primordial (not by any means)
which renders inimitable interpretation (subjectivity)
the product of developmental
emergence (and not existent at some levels of physical existence - even if the level of its (subjectivity's) appearance can be argued to an
, which cannot be said about existential identity, since identity is the fundamental requirement within the Relative Being State -
establishing the factual "this versus that" which bases the whole point of that being state.
And yet, I look everywhere for a functional definition of Identity, and I can't seem to find one that doesn't involve human beings and their notion
Am I looking for a different term altogether? Can any of you philosophy majors point me in the right direction?
Oh, and please don't waste your time trying to convince me that Identity doesn't exist.
Even if this whole reality is just the product of an observing singularity, what's being observed (as illusory as you believe it is) possesses
Identity - each illusion relative to every other illusion - even within the whole of the overarching illusion itself which possesses its own identity
relative to each contributive illusion that combines to form it as the whole that it is. This overarching illusion also possesses an inimitable
Identity relative to the observing singularity, since it too possesses its own inimitable identity - especially if it is observing an illusion that is
The above statement - as logically impossible as it actually is, since a singularity can't observe an illusion (being the only existent anything
that such a singularity would have to be to be a singularity)
- will be used to dismiss your arguments, so just spare yourself the grief.
So....anyone with a link to what I'm looking for? I'd hate to think that I'm the only one seeing identity as more than a philosophical assumption
that's too primordial to bother with.