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.

?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.

Geach(The statement discusses an objection Geach made): Peter Geach was a 20th-century British philosopher who raised logical objections to certain philosophical theories, including one about how language and meaning work.
Identity(Adams treats identity statements as a variety of atomic formula rather than a logical truth exempt from existence presuppositions): A relation between an object and itself, expressed as an atomic formula (a=a), subject to the same existence-entailment conditions as other atomic predicates under GSA
Radical indeterminacy(in epistemology and philosophy of language): A state where meaning is completely unclear or unstable—where there's no way to pin down what something actually means.
Sortal-relative(describes how identity works according to Geach): Dependent on what *kind* or *category* of thing you're talking about; the answer changes based on whether you're asking about it as a person, a body, a statue, etc.

Based on where you are in your exploration