Infinitesimals, Nations, and Persons

Philosophy 94 (4):513-528 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I compare three sorts of case in which philosophers have argued that we cannot assert the Law of Excluded Middle for statements of identity. Adherents of Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis deny that Excluded Middle holds for statements saying that an infinitesimal is identical with zero. Derek Parfit contended that, in certain sci-fi scenarios, the Law does not hold for some statements of personal identity. He also claimed that it fails for the statement ‘England in 1065 was the same nation as England in 1067’. I argue that none of these cases poses a serious threat to Excluded Middle. My analysis of the last example casts doubt on the principle of the Determinacy of Distinctness. While David Wiggins's ‘conceptualist realism’ provides a metaphysics which can dispense with that principle, it leaves no house-room for infinitesimals.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-11-21

Downloads
42 (#1,334,813)

6 months
14 (#869,043)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ian Rumfitt
Oxford University

Citations of this work

Truth, Marks of Truth, and Conditionals.Ian Rumfitt - 2022 - Philosophy 97 (3):295-320.
Replies.David Wiggins - 2022 - Philosophy 97 (3):387-395.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Personal identity.Derek Parfit - 1971 - Philosophical Review 80 (1):3-27.
Can there be vague objects?Gareth Evans - 1978 - Analysis 38 (4):208.

Add more references