Strict identity (Leibniz's Law) applies to abstract objects and logical constants, but persons may be vague objects that admit of borderline cases without thereby being non-existent.

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

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Borderline cases(The unclear middle ground between definite heaps and definite non-heaps): Situations where it's genuinely unclear whether a label applies—like wondering if 500 grains of sand count as a heap or not.
Gottfried Leibniz(as a key figure in the debate): A 17th-18th century German philosopher and mathematician who argued that space doesn't exist independently but is just a way to describe how things relate to each other.
Leibniz's Law(Applied here to show that relative identity generates contradictions when sortals are treated as univocal.): The logical principle that if a = b, then whatever is truly predicated of a is truly predicated of b (the indiscernibility of identicals).
Strict identity(in metaphysics and logic): Perfect, absolute sameness in every way—if two things have strict identity, there is no meaningful difference between them whatsoever.

Based on where you are in your exploration