Erreur de la base de données WordPress : [Table 'azwwfihwhoworld2.wp_mr_rating_item' doesn't exist]SELECT ri.rating_item_id, ri.rating_id, ri.description, ri.default_option_value, ri.max_option_value, ri.weight, ri.active, ri.type FROM wp_mr_rating_item as ri GROUP BY ri.rating_item_id
4.5 The Ship of Theseus Paradox
The problem is not clearly one of reconciling LL with ordinary judgments of identity, and the advantage afforded by RI does not seem applicable. Griffin (1977), for example, relying on RI, claims that the original and remodeled ship are the same ship but not the same collection of planks, whereas the reassembled ship is the same collection of planks as the original but not the same ship. This simply doesn’t resolve the problem. The problem is that the reassembled and remodeled ships have, davanti facie, equal claim esatto be the original and so the bald claims that the reassembled ship is not-and the remodeled ship is-the original are unsupported. The problem is that of reconciling the intuition that indivis small changes (replacement of verso celibe part or small portion) preserve identity, with the problem illustrated by the sandals example of §2.5. It turns out, nevertheless, that the problem \(is\) one of dealing with the excesses of LL. Esatto resolve the problem, we need an additional level of relativity. Onesto motivate this development, consider the following abstract counterpart of the sandals example:
For \(P\) and \(Q^3\) are composed of exactly the same parts put together sopra exactly the same way, and similarly for \(Q\) and \(P^3\)
On the left there is an object \(P\) composed of three parts, \(P_1, P_2\), and \(P_3\). Continue reading « In this case, the relativist, as so far understood, may seem sicuro enjoy in nessun caso advantage over the absolutist »