Fascinating question!Is that so? Or is it that a logical tautology is an example of the Law of Identity?
I guess you could say that both are true but its sort of ridiculous to say the latter. I mean, everything that is true is an example of the law of identity (or one of it's corollaries) and so it would be making a distinction without a difference.
:up:Yes, I have only been using tautology in the logical sense because while I had been aware of its rhetorical sense, I have never personally either used it that way nor heard or read anyone else do so, and I presumptuously supposed that this was the case for most everybody else. My bad.
It is not a definition, it is a self-repetitive statement (see what I did there?). The definition of the word "Boss" would be slightly different. It would be, "The person who is in charge." The difference being subtle to be sure but quite important, at least in a discussion where tautologies are the subject."The boss is in charge" is a definition. Do you take definitions to be instantiations of the Law of Identity, as I take them to be tautologous?
A rhetorical tautology is a statement that is true MERELY based on the fact that it is stating the same thing twice with different words. The Greeks made fun of it because it simply amounts to repeating yourself and acting as if you've said something important. It's like describing someone as being a dark-haired brunette or explaining how you visually saw something or how a statement is "self-repetitive". It's just kind of a silly thing to say.
The law of identity is quite a different thing. It's stating that existence is real, which, as you can readily see, looks tautologous except that it is stating a first principle and as such is stating something meaningful and not merely repetitive. This is the difference between a logical tautology and a rhetorical one.
The Wikipedia article goes into it in some detail.I don't know. I know that Wittgenstein latched onto the word and popularized its use in that field.
No offense! Just potential confusion, that's all.I didn't know I was being offensive, my apologies.
The term is fine. I suggest simply adding the word 'logical' or 'rhetorical' to the term depending on which sense of the word 'tautology' you are using.Can you suggest another word instead, that denotes exactly the same things? I'm not stuck on tautology, I considered platitude, but they platitudes are not all derivations of the Law of Identity.
And do you equate derivations and instantiations of the Law of Identity, or are they different things?
I think logical tautologies are very specific things and while 'A is A' fits the definition (as do all the laws of reason), I can't say that all logical tautologies are derivations of the law of identity, although they may well be. It's a sort of confusing question because I've never heard the term 'logical tautology' used outside the context of formally stated formulas and truth tables.
Resting in Him,