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
    The contradiction used to refute relative identity dissol... — Carmelics
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The contradiction used to refute relative identity dissolves if one sortal is treated as a phase sortal and another as an ultimate sortal.

    Consciousness & Mind
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wiggins's sortal dependency thesis holds that identity statements are only well-formed relative to a sortal that supplies the criterion of identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When 'is G' is a phase sortal predication, it is elliptical for 'is G at t', making the temporal index part of the predicate's semantic content, not a modifier of identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Two predications with different built-in temporal indices are not univocal contradictories, so the apparent logical contradiction in relative identity cases never arises in the first place.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's distinction between substantial and accidental predication in the Categories supports treating ultimate sortals as supplying essential identity conditions while phase sortals supply only temporary ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'caterpillar' is a phase sortal and 'organism' is an ultimate sortal, the statement 'this organism is not a caterpillar' reports phase-exit, not numerical non-identity, preserving classical identity logic intact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A phase sortal applies under the rubric 'was, is, or will be G', not 'is G at all times'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is no inconsistency in: a was, is, or will be G; a = b; and b is not G at all times.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the two sortals are allowed to differ in temporal scope, the predications 'a is G' and 'b is not G' are no longer univocal and thus not contradictory.
      ?

      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

    Consciousness & Mind

    Related

    A phase sortal applies under the rubric 'was, is, or will be G', not 'is G at al...Aristotle's distinction between substantial and accidental predication in the Ca...If 'caterpillar' is a phase sortal and 'organism' is an ultimate sortal, the sta...If the two sortals are allowed to differ in temporal scope, the predications 'a ...
    +4 moreShow less
    There is no inconsistency in: a was, is, or will be G; a = b; and b is not G at ...Two predications with different built-in temporal indices are not univocal contr...When 'is G' is a phase sortal predication, it is elliptical for 'is G at t', mak...Wiggins's sortal dependency thesis holds that identity statements are only well-...

    Similar

    If ad hoc sortals were permitted, any putative contradiction generated...85%A proof against relative identity works by showing that allowing relat...79%If an object fell under more than one ultimate sortal, there could be ...77%If object 'a' falls under sortal G and a = b, then object 'b' also fal...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: substance
    View source passageHide passage
    More importantly, that there are no ad hoc sortals is essential to the significance of the formal proof that there is no such thing as relative identity. In logic and in the application of Leibniz’s Law, ‘a is F’ is normally equivalent to ‘a was, is or will be F’, otherwise the Law would not apply to such accidental properties as ‘is brown’. This is also the way phase sortals work: a human being is, was, or will be a baby. The argument against relative identity works by arguing that, if one allo
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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