Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Geach's relative identity thesis does not require avoiding contradiction but rather rejects the unrestricted use of Leibniz's Law across sortal kinds.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If x is identical to y under sortal F but not under sortal G, then x and y really differ in some property, making the identity claims genuinely contradictory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Restricting Leibniz's Law merely postpones the problem—we must still explain why 'same object, different sortals' doesn't constitute real difference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Standard identity is transitive and unrestricted by design. Sortal-indexed identity ('identical-as-F') is a different relation, not true identity itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Identity claims like 'the statue is the clay' are true under sortal 'physical object' but false under 'lump of clay,' showing identity is sortal-relative.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Leibniz's Law assumes absolute identity: if x=y, all properties match. But sortal-relative identity permits x=y under one sortal while x≠y under another.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Restricting Leibniz's Law to same-sortal comparisons avoids contradiction without denying the legitimacy of cross-sortal identity judgments.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.