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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The claim that A and A' differ because A' comes into existence after A is not well supported

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A cannot be supposed to persist after A' comes into existence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We do not end up with two new sandals and one old one after the parts exchange
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is no reason why it couldn't be A itself that reappears at the later time
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Temporal location alone cannot individuate objects if we accept four-dimensionalism, since temporal parts share existence across time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On Sider's stage theory, what persists is a counterpart relation, not strict identity, so A' coming later does not preclude being the same sandal as A.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If mere temporal position were sufficient to distinguish A from A', then temporal duplicates in branching-time models would be numerically distinct, which is widely rejected.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wiggins's sortal-relative identity requires that identity conditions be fixed by the kind-term, not by spatio-temporal origin alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The kind 'sandal' does not include a temporal-origin criterion in its persistence conditions, unlike biological kinds governed by Kripkean essentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a kind-relative reason to privilege original temporal position, the claim that A and A' differ merely because A' comes later is unsupported by the sortal itself.
      ?

      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.