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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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