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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The contradiction used to refute relative identity dissolves if one sortal is treated as a phase sortal and another as an ultimate sortal.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42