CHAPTER III

IDENTITY

In the first chapter we have noticed the opinion that identities are

fundamental to all logic. We will now consider some other views of the

value of identities.

Identities are frequently used in common life by people who seem to

imagine that they can draw important conclusions respecting conduct or

matters of fact from them. I have heard of a man who gained the double

reputation of being a philosopher and a fatalist by the repeated

enunciation of the identity "Whatever will be, will be"; and the Italian

equivalent of this makes up an appreciable part of one of Mr. Robert

Hichens' novels. Further, the identity "Life is Life" has not only been

often accepted as an explanation for a particular way of living but has

even been considered by an authoress who calls herself "Zack" to be an

appropriate title for a novel; while "Business is Business" is

frequently thought to provide an excuse for dishonesty in trading, for

which purpose it is plainly inadequate.

Another example is given by a poem of Mr. Kipling, where he seems to

assert that "East is East" and "West is West" imply that "never the

twain shall meet." The conclusion, now, is false; for, since the world

is round--as geography books still maintain by arguments which strike

every intelligent child as invalid[20]--what is called the "West" does,

in fact, merge into the "East." Even if we are to take the statement

metaphorically, it is still untrue, as the Japanese nation has shown.

The law-courts are often rightly blamed for being strenuous opponents of

the spread of modern logic: the frequent misuse of _and_, _or_, _the_,

and _provided that_ in them is notorious. But the fault seems partly to

lie in the uncomplicated nature of the logical problems which are dealt

with in them. Thus it is no uncommon thing for somebody to appear there

who is unable to establish his own identity, or for A to assert that B

was "not himself" when he made a will leaving his money to C.

The chief use of identities is in implication. Since, in logic, we so

understand _implication_[21] that any true proposition implies and is

implied by any other true proposition; if one is convinced of the truth

of the proposition Q, it is advisable to choose one or more identities

P, whose truth is undoubted, and say that P implies Q. Thus, Mr. Austen

Chamberlain, according to _The Times_ of March 27, 1909, professed to

deduce the conclusion that it is not right that women should have votes

from the premisses that "man is man" and "woman is woman." This method

requires that one should have made up one's mind about the conclusion

before discovering the premisses--by what, no doubt, Jevons would call

an "inverse or inductive method." Thus the method is of use only in

speeches and in giving good advice.

Mr. Austen Chamberlain afterwards rather destroyed one's belief in the

truth of his premisses by putting limits to the validity of the

principle of identity. In the course of the Debate on the Budget of

1909, he maintained, against Mr. Lloyd George, that a joke was a joke

except when it was an untruth: Mr. Lloyd George, apparently, being of

the plausible opinion that a joke is a joke under all circumstances.

FOOTNOTES:

[20] The argument about the hull of a ship disappearing first is not

convincing, since it would equally well prove that the surface of the

earth was, for example, corrugated on a large scale. If the common-sense

of the reader were supposed to dismiss the possibility of water clinging

to such corrugations, it might equally be supposed to dismiss the

possibility of water clinging to a spherical earth. Traditional

geography books, no doubt, gave rise to the opinions held by Lady Blount

and the Zetetic Society.

[21] The subject of Implication will be further considered in Chapter

XIX.

The philosophy of Mr. B*rtr*nd R*ss*ll · 第 3 / 43 章