more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
There mere fact that Tibbles can survive the mutilation of losing a tail, whereas the sum of Tib and the tail cannot, is enough to distinguish them, even if no such mutilation ever occurs.
Gist of Idea
Tibbles isn't Tib-plus-tail, because Tibbles can survive its loss, but the sum can't
Source
Peter Simons (Parts [1987], 6.1)
Book Ref
Simons,Peter: 'Parts: a Study in Ontology' [OUP 1987], p.210
A Reaction
See Idea 12835 for details of the Tibbles example. Either we go for essentialism here, or the whole notion of identity collapses. But the essential features of a person are not just those whose loss would kill them.
Related Idea
Idea 12835 Does Tibbles remain the same cat when it loses its tail? [Simons]
| 16058 | Dion and Theon coexist, but Theon lacks a foot. If Dion loses a foot, he ousts Theon? [Chrysippus, by Philo of Alexandria] |
| 15537 | If cats are vague, we deny that the many cats are one, or deny that the one cat is many [Lewis] |
| 14751 | Tib goes out of existence when the tail is lost, because Tib was never the 'cat' [Burke,M, by Sider] |
| 13437 | A CAR and its major PART can become identical, yet seem to have different properties [Gallois] |
| 14740 | If Tib is all of Tibbles bar her tail, when Tibbles loses her tail, two different things become one [Sider] |
| 16200 | Are sortals spatially maximal - so no cat part is allowed to be a cat? [Hawley] |
| 12835 | Does Tibbles remain the same cat when it loses its tail? [Simons] |
| 12857 | Tibbles isn't Tib-plus-tail, because Tibbles can survive its loss, but the sum can't [Simons] |