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 object 'a' falls under sortal G and a = b, then object 'b' also falls under sortal G and is the same G as a

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sortal identity is not a purely logical relation but depends on principles of individuation tied to natural kinds and their persistence conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Two descriptions may pick out the same object under different sortals with incompatible identity criteria, as Wiggins argues in 'Sameness and Substance'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, 'a = b' as a bare logical identity cannot guarantee shared sortal membership without presupposing a privileged sortal, which begs the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's Law applies only to genuine properties, but sortal membership is a Cambridge property sensitive to conceptual scheme, not an intrinsic feature of objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Geach's relative identity thesis holds that identity statements are only well-formed relative to a sortal, so 'a = b' simpliciter is not a coherent identity claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Object 'a' falls under sortal G
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Object 'a' is identical to object 'b' (a = b)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.By Leibniz's Law, identical objects share all properties
      ?

      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.