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
    Numerical identity across instantiations cannot ground th... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A common nature cannot be numerically identical in each of its instantiations.

    Numerical identity across instantiations cannot ground the kind of similarity relation observed between distinct particulars.

    Modality & PossibilityPersonal Identity
    ?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.

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

    Topics

    Personal IdentityModality & Possibility

    Related

    A common nature cannot be numerically identical in each of its instantiations.If a common nature were numerically identical across instantiations, the instanc...Similarity between different instances of the same kind requires that they share...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Personal Identity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Relations of similarity between particulars require some explanation.81%There can be no vague or indeterminate identity between distinct objec...79%If a common nature were numerically identical across instantiations, t...79%Relations of similarity between particulars must have a real foundatio...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: medieval-haecceity
    View source passageHide passage
    The point is that relations of similarity between two particulars cannot be self-explanatory; they must have some explanation (some “real foundation”) in the things that are similar. This is amongst other things an argument against resemblance nominalism. But it is also supposed to be an argument against the view that a common nature could be numerically identical in each instantiation. As Paul Vincent Spade helpfully comments in loc. (ftnt. 8), “for mediaeval authors … a thing x is not (qualita

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective