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 There can be no vague or indeterminate identity between distinct objects (in the sense that vaguely identical objects must be absolutely distinct).

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's Law applies only determinately: if it is indeterminate whether x=y, it is indeterminate whether the law's antecedent conditions are met.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When it is indeterminate whether x has a property P, we cannot determinately conclude x and y differ, only that it is indeterminate whether they differ.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Evans's argument illicitly treats 'vaguely identical to x' as a determinate property, but on supervaluationist semantics, indeterminate predicates lack classical extensions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gareth Evans's proof assumes that '∇(x=y)' attributing vague identity to x is a genuine, determinate property of x, but this begs the question against metaphysical indeterminacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On a Barnes-Williams ontic vagueness account, the world itself can be unsettled, so Leibniz's Law governs only determinate property-possession, not indeterminate cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If indeterminacy is located in the objects rather than representations, distinct objects can share indeterminate identity without contradiction, since classical logic does not straightforwardly apply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.x is not vaguely identical to x.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If x is assumed to be vaguely identical to y, then by Leibniz's Law, x and y differ in some property (namely, being vaguely identical to x).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.By Leibniz's Law, if x and y differ in a property, then x and y are absolutely distinct.
      ?

      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.