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
    Therefore, L2 is numerically distinct from L1. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→There must be at least two forms of largeness (L1 and L2).

    Therefore, L2 is numerically distinct from L1.

    Modality & PossibilityPersonal Identity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Personal Identity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    L1 partakes of L2.Non-Identity: if one form partakes of another, the two forms are numerically dis...There must be at least two forms of largeness (L1 and L2).

    Similar

    Non-Identity: L3 is numerically distinct from both L1 and L2.97%By Non-Identity, L2 is numerically distinct from L197%By Non-Identity, L3 is numerically distinct from both L1 and L296%Yet neither Y nor Z is numerically identical to X.89%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: plato-parmenides
    View source passageHide passage
    (Notice that Non-Identity follows directly from Separation.) From the fact that L1 partakes of L2, Non-Identity entails that L2 is numerically distinct from L1. Thus, there must be at least two forms of largeness, L1 and L2. But this is not all. By Self-Predication, L2 is large. So there is now a new plurality of large things, A, B, C, L1, and L2. Thus, by One-over-Many, there is a form of largeness (call it “L3”) by virtue of partaking of which A, B, C, L1, and L2 are large. Hence L1 and L2 bo

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective