more on this theme     |     more from this text


Single Idea 16224

[filed under theme 9. Objects / F. Identity among Objects / 6. Identity between Objects ]

Full Idea

Two things can't be vaguely identical, because then a would have an indeterminacy which b lacks (namely, being perfectly identical to b), so by Leibniz's Law they can't be identical.

Gist of Idea

There can't be vague identity; a and b must differ, since a, unlike b, is only vaguely the same as b

Source

report of Gareth Evans (Can there be Vague Objects? [1978], 4.7) by PG - Db (ideas)

Book Ref

Hawley,Katherine: 'How Things Persist' [OUP 2004], p.118


A Reaction

[my summary of Katherine Hawley's summary (2001:118) of Evans] Hawley considers the argument to be valid. I have grave doubts about whether b's identity with b is the sort of property needed for an application of Liebniz's Law.


The 23 ideas from Gareth Evans

We must distinguish what the speaker denotes by a name, from what the name denotes [Evans]
The Causal Theory of Names is wrong, since the name 'Madagascar' actually changed denotation [Evans]
The intended referent of a name needs to be the cause of the speaker's information about it [Evans]
If descriptions are sufficient for reference, then I must accept a false reference if the descriptions fit [Evans]
Charity should minimize inexplicable error, rather than maximising true beliefs [Evans]
We use expressions 'deferentially', to conform to the use of other people [Evans]
Speakers intend to refer to items that are the source of their information [Evans]
How can an expression be a name, if names can change their denotation? [Evans]
A private intention won't give a name a denotation; the practice needs it to be made public [Evans]
The Homunculus Fallacy explains a subject perceiving objects by repeating the problem internally [Evans]
'Superficial' contingency: false in some world; 'Deep' contingency: no obvious verification [Evans, by Macià/Garcia-Carpentiro]
Rigid designators can be meaningful even if empty [Evans, by Mackie,P]
Evans argues (falsely!) that a contradiction follows from treating objects as vague [Evans, by Lowe]
Is it coherent that reality is vague, identities can be vague, and objects can have fuzzy boundaries? [Evans]
Evans assumes there can be vague identity statements, and that his proof cannot be right [Evans, by Lewis]
There clearly are vague identity statements, and Evans's argument has a false conclusion [Evans, by Lewis]
If a=b is indeterminate, then a=/=b, and so there cannot be indeterminate identity [Evans, by Thomasson]
There can't be vague identity; a and b must differ, since a, unlike b, is only vaguely the same as b [Evans, by PG]
Experiences have no conceptual content [Evans, by Greco]
Some representational states, like perception, may be nonconceptual [Evans, by Schulte]
Concepts have a 'Generality Constraint', that we must know how predicates apply to them [Evans, by Peacocke]
We have far fewer colour concepts than we have discriminations of colour [Evans]
The Generality Constraint says if you can think a predicate you can apply it to anything [Evans]