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
    Given the standard account of identity, distinct dog-qual... — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→There are at least 101 dogs where we would normally count only one

    Given the standard account of identity, distinct dog-qualifying entities count as distinct dogs

    Personal 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 Identity

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    For each of Oscar's at least 101 hairs, there is a proper part of Oscar (Oscar m...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Personal Identity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Oscar− is a dog
    There are at least 101 dogs where we would normally count only one

    Similar

    Given the standard account of identity, merely thinking that x and y a...78%The standard account forces us either to deny that Oscar minus a hair ...76%Leibniz's Law (the standard account of identity) applies73%Therefore, in determining every feature of the world, God determines w...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: identity-relative
    View source passageHide passage
    (This paradox is also known as the paradox of 1001 cats; Geach 1980, Lewis 1993): Focus on Oscar and Oscar− at t — before Oscar loses his tail. Is Oscar− a dog? When Oscar loses his tail the resulting creature is certainly a dog. Why then should we deny that Oscar− is a dog? We saw above that one possible response to Chrysippus’ paradox was to claim that Oscar− does not exist at \(t'\). But even if we adopt this view, how does it follow that Oscar−, existing as it does at \(t\), is not a dog? Ye

    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