Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A rigid designator need only denote the same entity acros... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→No name of the piece of clay c is a rigid designator in the standard (absolute) sense.

    A rigid designator need only denote the same entity across possible worlds, not across times of a single world (Kripke, Naming and Necessity).

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Possible worlds represent modal space (what could be), while time represents actual sequence; these are fundamentally different metaphysical dimensions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Names rigidly designate entities qua their essential identity, which persists across counterfactuals but not necessarily through temporal stages.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kripke's account explains why 'Aristotle' picks out the same person in all possible worlds yet allows temporal change without identity failure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If a name rigidly designates an entity across possible worlds, temporal continuity within our actual world seems equally fundamental to that designation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between modal and temporal difference appears arbitrary: both involve tracking identity through varied scenarios of change.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Temporal parts theory and 4D ontology challenge whether time-indexed identity requires weaker designation than world-indexed identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language1 linkedPersonal Identity1 linked

    Related

    If a name rigidly designates an entity across possible worlds, temporal continui...Kripke's account explains why 'Aristotle' picks out the same person in all possi...Names rigidly designate entities qua their essential identity, which persists ac...No name of the piece of clay c is a rigid designator in the standard (absolute) ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Possible worlds represent modal space (what could be), while time represents act...Temporal parts theory and 4D ontology challenge whether time-indexed identity re...The distinction between modal and temporal difference appears arbitrary: both in...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit