Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that s1 is not absolutely identical to s2 (s1 ≠ s2).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
s1 and s2 are different statues.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
On the weak view, different statues are absolutely distinct.
?
How convincing is this?
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.