Buddhist anatman doctrine targets metaphysical substrates, not psychological continuity, making the distinction between rejecting substance and rejecting identity-relations conceptually necessary.

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

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Buddhist anatman doctrine(as the main subject being discussed): A core teaching in Buddhism that claims there is no permanent, unchanging self or soul—just constantly changing thoughts, feelings, and experiences bundled together.
Conceptually necessary(as used in logic and philosophy): Something that must logically be true by definition—it couldn't possibly be otherwise just based on what the words mean.
Identity-relations(as what Buddhist philosophy rejects entirely): The connections or rules that determine what counts as the same thing at different times or in different situations.
Metaphysical substrates(as what the anatman doctrine targets): The underlying, fundamental 'stuff' or foundations that philosophers think reality is made of—like whether there's a permanent soul or essence underneath everything.

Based on where you are in your exploration