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 If identity is always sortal-relative, the inference from bare 'a = b' to shared sortal G commits a category error by presupposing absolute identity.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Bare identity 'a = b' can be true in any sortal-relative framework if a and b pick out the same entity; sortal-relativity applies to identity criteria, not truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Logical identity (Leibniz's law) is distinct from metaphysical identity criteria; deriving sortal conclusions commits equivocation, not category error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sortal-relative identity allows that 'a = b' is determinately true within established contexts without requiring appeal to absolute identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Identity statements like 'a = b' lack determinate meaning without specifying which sortal (person, object, mass) governs the identity criterion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Absolute identity presumes a view-from-nowhere independent of conceptual schemes, but all identity is mediated through sortally-specific criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Inferring 'a and b share sortal G' from bare 'a = b' assumes the identity relation itself is sortal-neutral, contradicting sortal-relativity thesis.
      ?

      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.