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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Geach's argument from language relativity does not establish that Relative Identity (RI) is true of identity as formalized in FOL=

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The argument relies on the identity of indiscernibles (indiscernibility implies identity)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The identity of indiscernibles is not valid in FOL= even when treated as a proper theory
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Language relativity does not imply that the distinctness of distinct objects cannot go unnoticed
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Geach's linguistic examples (e.g., 'same river') presuppose sortal-relative criteria, which are semantic facts about count nouns, not metaphysical facts about identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Wiggins's sortal dependency thesis shows that sortals govern individuation conditions without thereby making identity itself relative to a sortal predicate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A semantic thesis about how we pick out objects under descriptions is logically independent of a metaphysical thesis that identity itself is a relation holding only relative to a sortal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment requires that FOL= identity statements quantify over determinate objects prior to any sortal classification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If identity were genuinely sortal-relative as Geach claims, referential success in first-order languages would be systematically undermined, producing radical indeterminacy Geach himself does not endorse.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, Geach's argument, even if sound regarding linguistic practice, cannot extend to undermine the absolute identity relation formalized in FOL= without collapsing into Quinean inscrutability of reference.
      ?

      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.