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
    Quine's criterion of ontological commitment requires that... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Geach's argument from language relativity does not establish that Relative Identity (RI) is true of identity as formalized in FOL=

    Quine's criterion of ontological commitment requires that FOL= identity statements quantify over determinate objects prior to any sortal classification.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Quantification in FOL presupposes a domain of objects; identity statements make this domain explicit, requiring pre-sortal individuation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sortals classify objects post hoc; the identity relation itself must operate on determinate entities independent of classification schemes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quine's criterion avoids circularity: if sortals determined identity, we'd need prior criteria to choose among competing sortal schemes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Identity can be relative to sortal frameworks; x=y 'as artifacts' differs from x=y 'as masses,' without requiring pre-sortal objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No determinate object-hood exists prior to conceptual scheme; 'object' itself is sortal, making pre-sortal commitment incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quine conflates metaphysical commitment with logical form; FOL syntax doesn't entail that domains contain unsorted, category-neutral entities.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language1 linkedPersonal Identity1 linked

    Related

    Geach's argument from language relativity does not establish that Relative Ident...Identity can be relative to sortal frameworks; x=y 'as artifacts' differs from x...No determinate object-hood exists prior to conceptual scheme; 'object' itself is...Quantification in FOL presupposes a domain of objects; identity statements make ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Quine conflates metaphysical commitment with logical form; FOL syntax doesn't en...Quine's criterion avoids circularity: if sortals determined identity, we'd need ...Sortals classify objects post hoc; the identity relation itself must operate on ...

    Details

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