Foundations of the Principles of Non-Contradiction and Identity

Abstract

Aristotle finds “why a thing is itself” to be “a meaningless inquiry,” (Aristotle, 2000, VII - 17) Hume says about the propositions that express that one thing is identical with itself “we really should mean nothing” (Hume, 2019, p. 230) and, according to Wittgenstein (1922), they say nothing (5.5303). However, I would like to ask here, how can it be so obviously true for a healthy adult person, who has no idea about science, mathematics or logic, that one thing is not another one, but the thing itself? I believe that the tautology, A is not non-A, but A, or short expressed “A is A,” seems so obviously true that it may help to find the origin of so-called “the laws of thought” through the medium of the clues that are given by its self-evidence. The purpose of this work is to claim that the principles of non-contradiction and identity are first based not on human reasoning or thought, but on the biological foundations , namely reception, sensation and perception, which every known living being has. To begin, these principles and then their origin, the discerning faculty, will be explained from the point of view of John Locke. After that, with the help of some examples from biology, it will be indicated that not only human but also every known life form that doesn’t have cognition as human has has this fundamental faculty in its perception and thereby can discern its perceptibilia . Finally, due to this fact, the biological roots of these principles will be demonstrated.

Keywords

• Principles of Non-Contradiction and Identity
• discerning faculty
• Foundations of the Principles of Non-Contradiction and Identity
• biological Foundations of the Principles of Non-Contradiction and Identity

References

1. [1] Alters, S. (2000). Biology: Understanding Life (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
2. [2] Aristotle (2000). Metaphysics. Infomotions, Inc.
3. [3] Blackburn, S. (2016). A Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 16 May. 2022, from https://www-oxfordreference-com.proxy.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/view/10.1093/acref/9780198735304.001.0001/acref-9780198735304.
4. [4] Buchanan, B. B., Gruissem, W., & Jones, R. L. (Eds.). (2015). Biochemistry and molecular biology of plants. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
5. [5] Cook, R. T. (2009). A Dictionary of Philosophical Logic. Edinburgh University Press. Retrieved 16 May. 2022, from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/senc/detail.action?docID=1962201.
6. [6] Ferguson, T., & Priest, G. A Dictionary of Logic. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 16 May. 2022, from https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191816802.001.0001/acref-9780191816802.
7. [7] Frings, S., Müller F. (2014). Biologie der Sinne – Vom Molekül zur Wahrnehmung. Springer Spektrum.
8. [8] Halliday, Tim (e.d.) 1998. The Senses and Communication. Springer.

9. [9] Hume, D. (2019). A Treatise of Human Nature. Electric Book.
10. [10] Khanna, D.R. (2004). Biology of Protozoa. Discovery Publishing House.
11. [11] Lackie, J.M. (2013). The Dictionary of Cell & Molecular Biology (5th ed.). Elsevier.
12. [12] Locke, J. (2000). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Infomotions, Inc.
13. [13] Margulis L., Sagan D. (1995). What is Life?. Simon & Schuster.
14. [14] Martin, E., & Hine, R. (2008). A Dictionary of Biology. : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 22 Dec. 2021, from https://www-oxfordreference-com.proxy.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/view/10.1093/acref/9780199204625.001.0001/acref-9780199204625-e-4418.
15. [15] Matthews, John C. (1993). Fundamentals of Receptor, Enzyme, and Transport Kinetics. CRC Press.
16. [16] Sauce B., Matzel L.D. (2017). Vonk J., Shackelford T. (eds). Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. Springer, Cham.
17. [17] Smith, C.U.M. (2008). Biology of Sensory Systems. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
18. [18] Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Cosimo Classics.