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
    s1 is not absolutely identical to s2 (s1 ≠ s2). — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    s1 is not absolutely identical to s2 (s1 ≠ s2).

    Modality & PossibilityPersonal Identity
    ?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.s1 and s2 are different statues.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On the weak view, different statues are absolutely distinct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If s1 and s2 share all spatiotemporal properties and are composed of the same matter at every moment, Leibniz's Law yields identity, not distinctness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The weak relative identity view lacks principled criteria distinguishing 'different statues' from 'different descriptions of one statue', undermining P1.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Geach argued that all identity claims are sortal-relative, so 'absolutely identical' is not a coherent predicate against which s1 ≠ s2 can be measured.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If absolute identity is incoherent as a standard (following Geach's relative identity thesis), the conclusion s1 ≠ s2 in absolute terms is ill-formed rather than false.
      ?

      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 IdentityModality & Possibility

    Related

    Geach argued that all identity claims are sortal-relative, so 'absolutely identi...If absolute identity is incoherent as a standard (following Geach's relative ide...If s1 and s2 share all spatiotemporal properties and are composed of the same ma...On the weak view, different statues are absolutely distinct.
    +2 moreShow less
    The weak relative identity view lacks principled criteria distinguishing 'differ...s1 and s2 are different statues.

    Similar

    s1 and s2 are absolutely distinct.92%If s1 is identical to s2, then s1 exists on day 288%s1 and s2 are different statues.84%If c is identical to s1 on day 1 and c is identical to s2 on day 2, th...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: identity-relative
    View source passageHide passage
    Constitution is identity, absolute identity. The relation between the piece of clay \(c\) and the statue \(s_1\) on day 1 is one of absolute identity. So we have that \(c = s_1\) on day 1, and for the same reason, \(c = s_2\) on day 2. Furthermore, since \(s_1\) and \(s_2\) are different statues, it follows (on the weak view) that \(s_1\ne s_2\). In addition, the piece of clay \(c\) constituting \(s_1\) on day 1 is (relatively) the same piece of clay as the piece of clay constituting \(s_2\) on
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

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