In Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, author Leonard Peikoff
claims that the Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of
Identity:

"Causality is best classified as a corollary of identity." {page 15}

Immediately thereafter Peikoff explains what he means by the term
"corollary."

'A "corollary" is a self-evident implication of already established
knowledge. A corollary of an axiom is not itself an axiom; it is not
self-evident apart from the principle(s) at its root (an axiom, by
contrast,
does not depend on an antecedent context). Nor is a corollary a
theorem;
it does not permit or require a process of proof; like an axiom, it
is
self-evident (once its context has been grasped). It is, in effect, a
new
angle on an established principle, which follows immediately once one
grasps its meaning and the principle on which it depends.'

On page 14 Peikoff had already given the following argument:

'When a child has reached the stage of (implicitly) grasping "entity,"
"identity," and "action," he has the knowledge required to reach
(implicitly) the law of causality. To take this step, he needs to...

On Dec 30, 4:32 pm, malen...@hotmail.com wrote:

Mal, read the lips, existence has identity, and even you have now
discovered that fact in your own, albeit pathetic, attempts to try and
identify a contradition, therefore to try and destroy something Rand
had said.

You obviously, albeit un or sub-consciously, understood that even
ideas must have their own unique identity, because, if or when they
dont, then they are just man made noises or written squiggles, and you
will never admit, of course, but you had also found yourself having to
embrace *non-contradictiory identification* because you knew that any
contradiction destroys reality.

Your next mission, is to explain (to yourself is just fine because
objectivists already know that you're on a hiding to nothing) your
next mission, is to explain HOW existence, therefore identity, can NOT
have a cause. Ask the religionist mystics, and they'll no doubt tell
you all about god's ability of a causeless creation, your choice is to
accept or reject the fool's idea.

On Dec 30, 3:04 am, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

No, existence IS identity. Didn't ewe get the memo?

My post concerned Peikoff's junk not Rand's. Look at the title of
the thread before you post a response.

On Dec 30, 10:21 am, malen...@hotmail.com wrote:

On Dec 30, 12:21 pm, malen...@hotmail.com wrote:

Why, Mal, all you have to do is introspect while you're looking in the
mirror and you'll have your answer.

Fred Weiss

On Dec 30, 12:21 pm, malen...@hotmail.com wrote:

Why, Mal, all you have to do is introspect while looking in the mirror
and you'll have your answer.

Fred Weiss

On Dec 30, 12:47 pm, Fred Weiss papertig.com> wrote:

The question is: If Peikoff wants to use an example from childhood
thinking processes, about which he knows next to nothing, then
claim that the child forms an (implicit?) corollary of the
(implicit) law of causality from an (implicit) concept of entity,
then why don't people automatically respect the law of
causality their whole lives?

On Dec 31, 2:21 am, malen...@hotmail.com wrote:

Context dopey, the identity which an entity of existence has, is what
gives its meaning to you, a human being.

Perhaps you might now like to have a crack at giving the specific
identity of "10 minutes ago", or doesn't the knowledge of time you and
Kant claim that you are born with, stretch that far?

Why the *ewe* for me? Ewe're the one surrounded by brain dead sheeple
who regard ewe as their mentor.

I have understood all memo I have read of Rand's and Piekoff's, what a
pity you didn't understand the ones that your Kantian, therefore
painted on, eyes glazed over.

I did and all I read was a hysterical fool's Kantian indoctrinated
context dropping perceptions, rabbiting on about a subject clearly you
know nothing about.

On Dec 29, 11:32 pm, malen...@hotmail.com wrote:

On Dec 30, 3:29 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

??? And who would they be? Aww well, you're just jealous, after all.