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 O and S must be the same ship

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hobbes's scenario stipulates that the original planks are reassembled into a ship, creating a rival candidate with equal or stronger claim to identity with O via spatiotemporal and material continuity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When two distinct objects both satisfy the identity conditions for O, the relation 'same ship as' cannot be one-one, undermining the uniqueness presupposed by the claim that S must be O.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Wiggins's thesis that identity statements require a sortal concept under which exactly one continuant qualifies entails that 'same ship' fails here, leaving the identity claim indeterminate rather than true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gradual replacement preserves identity only if no threshold exists, but Chisholm's mereological essentialism holds that any part replacement yields a numerically distinct object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Chisholm is correct, P2 is false even for single-part replacement, and the transitivity chain in the supporting argument never gets started.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.S eventuates from O by replacing one part of O one day at a time
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Replacing just one part of a thing by a new exactly similar part preserves the identity of the thing
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Identity is transitive
      ?

      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.