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
    By the Necessity of Distinctness (ND), if two objects are... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Oscar and Oscar− are distinct at t'

    By the Necessity of Distinctness (ND), if two objects are distinct at one time, they are distinct at all times

    Modality & PossibilityPersonal Identity
    ?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.

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

    Topics

    Personal IdentityModality & Possibility

    Related

    Oscar and Oscar− are distinct at tOscar and Oscar− are distinct at t'

    Similar

    By the Necessity of Distinctness (ND), if two objects are distinct at ...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Personal Identity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    99%
    By the Necessity of Identity (NI) / Necessity of Distinctness (ND), ob...88%
    By the Necessity of Distinctness (ND), if two things are distinct in s...88%
    Let Bill and Bill* be distinct objects that differ in at least one qua...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: identity-relative
    View source passageHide passage
    The following paradox — a variation of the paradox of change — raises some new questions. It is due to the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus (c.280 B.C.E. – c.206 B.C.E.) and has been resurrected by Michael Burke (Burke 1994). In Chrysippus’s example, ‘Dion’ is the name of a human and ‘Theon’ is the name of the proper part of Dion that includes everything but his [Dion’s] left foot. Dion then loses his foot and Chrysippus wishes to know which of those objects — Dion or Theon — survives after Dion los

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective