> In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία)

>>8054524
>which definition should I use
You've fallen into the is-ought trap m8

>>8054548

Haha haha, what an idiot. Kant blew Hume the fuck out.

No, I won't summarise Kant here. You should go and read his 90001 pages of obscurantism and think about why you are wrong.

>>8054588
> people don't actually read this shit so I'll just make something up
State of philosophy today everyone!

Outside of posturing, it depends on what perspective you are taking/want to take. Hegel is a decent place to look imo since he talks about how tautologies can be shitty like "an elephant is not a rose" or similar. And Wittgenstein obv, where logic is really a practice of finding tautologies.

>>8054524
Good lord, you write poorly.

>>8054524
on what planet does that qualify as "dancing"?

>>8054668
africa/hollywood

>>8054524
The first definition.

>>8054717
africans can dance 100x better than white americans tho

>>8054880
And 50× better than Black Americans

>>8054880
>africans
>dancing
anon, i...

>>8054524
Both? The second one is better used for propositional logic since it is precise, while the first one, a bit more vague, can be used on isolated simple statements maybe? I'm not sure if such a statement can be conceived though. "Red is a colour" may seem like such an example, but that is due to vagueness since Red can also be the name of a dog for instance.

>>8055065
I would've said something like "A is A", but Hegelians tend to be pedantic about it. Like Zizek puts it, if I say "Zizek is Zizek", the second one might mean something like an essence, rather than a designated person.

I just used the name Zizek in a logics thread...

>>8054524
first one because it's shorter and straight to the point
The other one is longer, word "vacuous" gives it a dose of subjective value judgement. However, the example is nice, and it could be incorporated into the first definition.