« Is The Doctrine of the Trinity Logically Coherent? (Peter Lupu) | Main | Saturday Night at the Oldies: The Rain Theme »

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I have a minor quibble.

"(This is a rough formulation of the Indiscenibility of Identicals. A more careful formulation would block such apparent counterexamples as: Maynard G. Krebs believes that the morning star is a planet but does not believe that the evening star is a planet.)"

This is not a counterexample to the principle.

I think we have to pay close attention to the referents of the words "morning star" and "evening star".

If by "morning star" and "evening star", we mean some thing out in the world, then if one half of the sentence is true, then the other is false. If it is true that Maynard G. Krebs believes that the morning star is a planet, that is, if he believes that *that thing over there* is a planet, then it is false that he doesn't believe that the evening star is a planet, that is, that *that same thing over there* is a planet.

If by "morning star" and "evening star", we mean just his concepts that he labels "morning star" and "evening star" (or anything else that it could refer to which is not a concrete object in the world), then it just follows that his concept of "morning star" (or anything else that it could refer to which is not a concrete object in the world) is not identical to his concept of "evening star" (or anything else that it could refer to which is not a concrete object in the world), which is not problematic at all.

Bill,

Have you read the critique of the analogy by Bill Craig?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5219&printer_friendly=1

Hi Vlastimil,

Hope you are doing well. Yes, I read the Craig critique, but after writing the above.

Steven,

It is fact of astronomy that the MS = the ES = the planet Venus. Maynard, lazy as he is, doesn't know this. But he has two beliefs: he believes that the MS is a planet and he believes that ES is not a planet. Corresponding to those two beliefs there are two intentional properties: the property P1 of being believed by Maynard to be a planet, and the property P2 of being believed by Maynard to be a non-planet.

So one could offer this counterexample to InId: the MS and ES differ property-wise, and so are not identical because one has P1 and the other doesn't. So the formulation of IdIn must exclude intentional properties, and possibly some other weird 'properties.'

I understand that; in my first comment I said we should pay attention to the referents of the terms. I would say in that case, where Maynard has two beliefs about MS and ES, Maynard actually is not using the term "evening star" correctly, and is believing something (namely, that *it, whatever it is* is not a planet) about something else other than the object in the world.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

November 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad