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
    No name of the piece of clay c is a rigid designator in t... — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    No name of the piece of clay c is a rigid designator in the standard (absolute) sense.

    Personal Identity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.On day 1, a name of the piece of clay c would denote the statue s1, and on day 2 it would denote the statue s2.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.s1 and s2 are absolutely distinct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A rigid designator in the standard sense must denote absolutely the same thing across times.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A rigid designator need only denote the same entity across possible worlds, not across times of a single world (Kripke, Naming and Necessity).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The temporal variation in what 'c' denotes is irrelevant to rigidity, which is a modal notion concerning counterfactual scenarios.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, 'c' can be a rigid designator even if its referent undergoes sortal change over time within the actual world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Geach's relative identity thesis does not preclude a name from rigidly designating an object under the sortal under which it was introduced (cf. Wiggins, Sameness and Substance).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'c' is introduced as a name for the piece of clay qua piece of clay, it rigidly designates that continuant across all worlds where that clay exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The apparent referential shift between s1 and s2 reflects sortal-relative counting, not failure of rigid designation for the clay itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityPhilosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    A rigid designator in the standard sense must denote absolutely the same thing a...A rigid designator need only denote the same entity across possible worlds, not ...Geach's relative identity thesis does not preclude a name from rigidly designati...If 'c' is introduced as a name for the piece of clay qua piece of clay, it rigid...
    +5 moreShow less
    On day 1, a name of the piece of clay c would denote the statue s1, and on day 2...The apparent referential shift between s1 and s2 reflects sortal-relative counti...The temporal variation in what 'c' denotes is irrelevant to rigidity, which is a...Therefore, 'c' can be a rigid designator even if its referent undergoes sortal c...s1 and s2 are absolutely distinct.

    Similar

    A rigid designator refers to the same object with respect to every cir...78%A rigid designator in the standard sense must denote absolutely the sa...76%On day 1, a name of the piece of clay c would denote the statue s1, an...71%An expression that rigidly designates its referent from a fixed contex...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: identity-relative
    View source passageHide passage
    Constitution is identity, absolute identity. The relation between the piece of clay \(c\) and the statue \(s_1\) on day 1 is one of absolute identity. So we have that \(c = s_1\) on day 1, and for the same reason, \(c = s_2\) on day 2. Furthermore, since \(s_1\) and \(s_2\) are different statues, it follows (on the weak view) that \(s_1\ne s_2\). In addition, the piece of clay \(c\) constituting \(s_1\) on day 1 is (relatively) the same piece of clay as the piece of clay constituting \(s_2\) on
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit