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
    Oscar− is a dog — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→There are at least 101 dogs where we would normally count only one

    Oscar− is a dog

    ?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.When Oscar loses his tail, the resulting creature is certainly a dog
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Oscar− is what remains when Oscar loses his tail, and it is present at t with the same properties
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is no principled reason to deny that Oscar− is a dog at t if it becomes a dog at t'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Whether something is a dog depends on its intrinsic properties and kind-membership at a time, not on its future causal history.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Oscar− at t lacks the complete biological constitution that grounds dog-kind membership, since tails are part of the normal canine form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, Oscar−'s future role in a tail-losing event cannot retroactively confer kind membership it does not currently possess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Geach's relative identity thesis requires that 'is the same F as' be a logically primitive relation, but Wiggins argues this generates vicious semantic indeterminacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Oscar− counts as a dog at t solely because it will constitute Oscar-minus-tail at t', then identity conditions for dogs become hostage to arbitrary future events.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A sortal like 'dog' must supply determinate persistence and application conditions independently of contingent future states, on pain of abandoning sortalism altogether.
      ?

      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 Identity

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A sortal like 'dog' must supply determinate persistence and application conditio...For each of Oscar's at least 101 hairs, there is a proper part of Oscar (Oscar m...Geach's relative identity thesis requires that 'is the same F as' be a logically...Given the standard account of identity, distinct dog-qualifying entities count a...
    +8 moreShow less
    If Oscar− counts as a dog at t solely because it will constitute Oscar-minus-tai...Oscar− at t lacks the complete biological constitution that grounds dog-kind mem...Oscar− is what remains when Oscar loses his tail, and it is present at t with th...There are at least 101 dogs where we would normally count only oneThere is no principled reason to deny that Oscar− is a dog at t if it becomes a ...Therefore, Oscar−'s future role in a tail-losing event cannot retroactively conf...When Oscar loses his tail, the resulting creature is certainly a dogWhether something is a dog depends on its intrinsic properties and kind-membersh...

    Similar

    When Oscar loses his tail, the resulting creature is certainly a dog76%There is no principled reason to deny that Oscar− is a dog at t if it ...76%Denying that Oscar minus a hair is a dog is difficult to justify, sinc...75%'Individual' refers to a member of a species — one countable unit amon...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: identity-relative
    View source passageHide passage
    (This paradox is also known as the paradox of 1001 cats; Geach 1980, Lewis 1993): Focus on Oscar and Oscar− at t — before Oscar loses his tail. Is Oscar− a dog? When Oscar loses his tail the resulting creature is certainly a dog. Why then should we deny that Oscar− is a dog? We saw above that one possible response to Chrysippus’ paradox was to claim that Oscar− does not exist at \(t'\). But even if we adopt this view, how does it follow that Oscar−, existing as it does at \(t\), is not a dog? Ye

    Details

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