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 Hesperus and Phosphorus are identical despite 'Is Hesperus Phosphorus?' being genuinely open prior to discovery.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If identity holds necessarily, the question 'Are they identical?' should be conceptually closed, not genuinely open.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An 'open question' suggests possibility of difference; calling it 'open' while asserting identity seems incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Our pre-discovery uncertainty reveals that 'Hesperus' and 'Phosphorus' express genuinely distinct modes of presentation, not mere epistemic gaps.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Identity is a metaphysical fact about objects, not determined by our knowledge or conceptual schemes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Epistemic openness (not knowing if X=Y) is compatible with metaphysical necessity (X is identical to Y).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Hesperus and Phosphorus refer to the same celestial body via different descriptive modes, making identity correct.
?
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.