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 is no such thing as bare identity — identity must always be identity under some concept

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Numerical identity ('a = a') is a purely logical relation that holds between an entity and itself prior to any conceptual sorting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frege's Begriffsschrift demonstrates that identity statements are well-formed in first-order logic without invoking sortals or kind concepts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If identity were always concept-relative, the transitivity and reflexivity of '=' would require qualification by a concept, collapsing into mere equivalence relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wiggins's own sortal dependency thesis conflates epistemic conditions for identifying x with metaphysical conditions for x being identical to itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if we require a sortal to re-identify an object across time, synchronic numerical identity at a single moment presupposes no such concept.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Geach's relative identity thesis, which this claim inherits, leads to the paradox that a and b can be the same F but different G's, violating Leibniz's Law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.When any a and b are asserted to be the same thing, they must be the same something-or-other
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The something-or-other must be a kind concept that answers 'what is it?' questions
      ?

      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.