That identity is not a relation between objects
is obvious. This becomes very clear if, for example, one
considers the proposition
"(x) : fx . . x=a". What this
proposition says is simply that onlya satisfies
the function f, and not that only such things satisfy the
function f which have a certain relation to a.
One could of course say that in fact only a has
this relation to a, but in order to express this we should
need the sign of identity itself.
Russell's definition of "=" won't do; because
according to it one cannot say that two objects have all their
properties in common. (Even if this proposition is never true,
it is nevertheless significant.)
Roughly speaking: to say of two things that
they are identical is nonsense, and to say of one thing
that it is identical with itself is to say nothing.