Eggs is Eggs.... right?

Question

There's a bit of a debate raging at my work about whether the phrase "Sure as Eggs is Eggs" can accurately be used to indicate a 100% degree of certainty in relation to any given statement. For example if you asked me "is the Pope catholic?" and i'd reply "sure as eggs is eggs" meaning of course he is. My opponent in this debate would say that statement is being used inappropriately as eggs cannot always be said to be eggs. For example when used to bake a cake, they become part of the cake and are in fact no longer eggs. Or is an egg still an egg when it's not in the shell. A spurious arguement in my opinion

Who's right and why?

Answer 1

Congratulations on asking the first question which has required me to smoke not one but two cigarettes while considering it. Most questions require none, and once in a great while, I require one, but never before have I required two.

You are correct: eggs is eggs. Even if they are not in the shell, they are still eggs.

I will use the cake analogy to illustrate my thinking.

If you leave the vanilla out of a cake recipe, you will still end up with a cake. You cannot do the same with the eggs. You must have the eggs to make a cake, or the cake will fail. Granted, there are types of sweet concoctions which are mixed and baked without eggs, but they are in a different class of baked goods. You need eggs to make the thing we generally consider to be a cake.

Some people are allergic to eggs. Those who are are unable to eat cake made with eggs. That alone tells me that the egg remains the same whether it's baked in the cake or not. In order for a person to eat a cake when they are allergic to eggs, the cake must be made with a substitute product which simulates the effect of the egg on the cake batter. That, too, tells me that the egg is necessary, and retains its own eggy identity.

Flour, eggs, oil, baking powder, flavoring, etc... They all go into making the batter which is baked into a cake. The cake is a product of combining them. It is not something "other". It is something made with that specific combination of ingredients. None of those lose their identity. They simply combine with one another in a pleasing manner.

Eggs is eggs.

Answer 2

This is a great question and its answer is dependent on which form of philosophy one wishes to engage.

From the analytic side of philosophy, you find that "eggs is eggs" is a tautology, which by its very definition must be true.

From the Continental side of philosophy, you could argue that the re-iteration (or the reiterability as Derrida calls it) of the term makes it such that it is BOTH itself and different than itself (because, simply put, the first "eggs" is read or heard first and the second not). In this case, they are different. The question then becomes are they different enough.

Answer 3

So far nobody has asked if you're talking about 'eggs' from a chicken, an ostrich, a platypuss, a snake, or human ovum?

Jeeezzzzzz........ I think I'll pass on this one. You guys are -way- out of my league.

Doug

Answer 4

well it is obvious to me that you both have just too much time on your hands that you need to be using to work