Full Idea
Could the artificer not, when he made the table, have taken other pieces? Surely he could. [n37: I venture to think that Kripke's argument in note 56 for the necessity of constitution depends on treating constitution as if it were identity].
Gist of Idea
A different piece of wood could have been used for that table; constitution isn't identity
Source
comment on Saul A. Kripke (Naming and Necessity notes and addenda [1972], note 56) by David Wiggins - Sameness and Substance Renewed 4.11
Book Reference
Wiggins,David: 'Sameness and Substance Renewed' [CUP 2001], p.134
A Reaction
Suppose the craftsman completed the table, then changed a piece of wood in it for some reason. Has he now made a second table and destroyed the first one? Wiggins seems to be right.