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 Within a single fixed language for which Leibniz's Law is defined, Relative Identity and Leibniz's Law are incompatible.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wiggins demonstrates that a sortal-relativized reading of LL—'x and y are the same F only if they share all F-relevant properties'—remains consistent with RI.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The incompatibility claim assumes LL must range over all properties unrestricted, but a sortal-restricted LL is not logically weaker in any objectionable sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since the restricted LL still grounds all legitimate individuation practices, the alleged incompatibility is an artifact of an unnecessarily strong formulation of LL.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Geach argues that all identity is sortal-relative, so 'absolute identity' required by Leibniz's Law is not a coherent predicate but a philosophical fiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no language can coherently define absolute identity, then LL's presupposition fails, and the incompatibility dissolves rather than refuting RI.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Identity relations are assumed to be equivalence relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The underlying propositional logic is assumed to be classical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Given these assumptions, RI and LL cannot both hold in the same framework.
      ?

      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.