Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
I, 117 ff
Contingent Identity/some authors: here the Leibniz principle fails.
>Leibniz principle.
Cresswell: better: that is only apparent identity.
E.g. the largest wooden building = the most beautiful building
right: the largest wooden necessary wooden - but not necessary identical with the most beautiful.
Problem: If it is identical, then it is necessarily indentical.
Necessary identity/(s): according to Kripke identity is necessary when names rather than labels are involved.
>Identity/Kripke, >Descriptions, >Proper names.
I 126
Necessary identity/Cresswell: if morning star = evening star, then: (if morning star and evening star nominal):
false: N (morning star x)(evening star y) (x = y)
but true:
(morning star x)(evening star y)N(x = y).
For x = y is true in every world under an attribution V iff V(x) = V(y), and then it is true in every possible world if it is true in one and then N(x = y).
Cresswell later: this corresponds in Hughes/Cresswell/HC: "The man next door = the major" as a natural truth: that is unnatural.
Cf. >Morning star/Evening star.
Hughes I 167f
Identity/Hughes/Cresswell: identity is always necessary: (x =) always underlying, even if x appears under different descriptions.
The descriptions are contingent, but not the identity of the object with itself - this also applies to non-identity: it is always necessary even if the corresponding sentence is true.
>Non-identity.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.