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 formal proof that there is no such thing as relative identity requires that there are no ad hoc sortals.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Geach's relative identity thesis does not require avoiding contradiction but rather rejects the unrestricted use of Leibniz's Law across sortal kinds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A proof that assumes absolute identity as its logical framework cannot refute relative identity without begging the question against Geach's foundational challenge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The 'ad hoc sortal' objection presupposes that sortals must be antecedently fixed, but Wiggins's sortal essentialism shows sortals are grounded in natural kinds, not logical convenience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dummett and Stevenson's work on criteria of identity shows that different sortals can legitimately supply different identity conditions without any being ad hoc.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If sortal-relative identity conditions are semantically primitive and language-entry governed, the demand for a sortal-neutral proof of identity is itself philosophically unmotivated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If ad hoc sortals were permitted, any putative contradiction generated by relative identity could be avoided by deeming one sortal a phase sortal and the other an ultimate sortal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no contradiction can ever arise under a proof strategy, that proof has no force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proof against relative identity works by showing that allowing relative identity leads to contradiction (a is G, a = b, and b is not G).
      ?

      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.