Talk:Identity (philosophy)

message: OK, this needs to be split up. Any ideas for useful page titles? --FOo 23:01 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
OBSCURE RELATION
example Clark Kent is Superman was removed for its irrelevance to the topic. ie it was not sufficiently generic and too American for globally encompassing understanding.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.62.164 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: I've done what I could to clean up this page; it needs help, now, from someone who can integrate the material (see ). Bryan 18:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling All Philosophers

message: How about merging this with Ship of Theseus itself? The two are quite similar.
:I like having articles at places like the ship and the axe, although much of the discussion of the interpretation of those metaphors in the context of identity should be put into this article (and some should be removed from those).  But the stories themselves, especially the ship, are as encyclopedic as many of Aesop's fables or [Plato's cave]]. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another possible merger?

message: This section looks somewhat spurious to me. I assume that what should be being talked about is duplicates sharing intrinsic properties, not qualitative properties? A proper philosopher needs to fix this section up. Ben Finn 20:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualitative versus numerical identity

message: This was just a thought. I think both titles should direct to the same article (or possibly one of them to a section, etc.) Gregbard 06:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One is mathematics and logic, the other is philosophy and psychology. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with [[Law of identity]]

message: But "Clark Kent = Superman" is not, to my mind, an expression of mathematics.
also, the "Charlie Brown = Satan" example seems like it ought to be removed... either that or I'm missing the point.. or am woefully behind on my popular culture?...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.169.226 (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The concepts have different origin. However there is a law in philosophy that states that two things sharing every attribute are not only similar, but – by definition – are the same thing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps this is too anal

message: In ordinary discourse, identity, sameness and equality are not at all the same (no pun intended).
Moreover, these terms have been run-together for far too long by logicians and philosophers, an issue raised here:
Saunders, S. (2006), 'Are Quantum Particles Objects?', Analysis 66, 1, pp.52-62
and in more detail at my site:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm
Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The concepts have different origin. However there is a law in philosophy that states that two things sharing every attribute are not only similar, but – by definition – are the same thing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity = sameness? 

message: Is surely VERY weak, and personal essay like.--Philogo (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Baruch Spinoza, Karl Christian Friedrich Krause
--- Are they that important? More important than Leibniz? None of them is mentioned in the article.
The Golden Rule, Shunyata --- certainly everything is somehow related to everything else (in philsophy), but in some cases the relation is a long-distance one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.208.69 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Hey everybody, has anybody noticed that the current lede fails rather miserably to 'establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more'? Any suggestions about what can be done to remedy this?? Stho002 (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: particularly in view of the fact that this article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale! Cough...!
Stho002 (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think the lead is that bad, let’s look at what a lead should do according to Wikipedia:LEDE. Leads should:  define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points.  I feel the lead both defines the topic and establishes context pretty well.  It could be expanded a bit to summarize the most important points and further explain why the subject is interesting.  I do not feel your suggested lede is an improvement though.  There is a huge different between summarizing key points and writing a vast essay on the topic - A lede isn’t the place for an essay.  JonPF (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with that. Suggest lede should only mention points of interest that are outlined  in the article body, or at least other linked articles. — Philogos (talk)  23:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The current lede

message: On behalf of the general audience, I have replaced the misleading and confusing expression "just in case", with its correct, and easily understood equivalent, "if, and only if" (also, in more technical writing, "if and only if"). The following explains the error:
* Language Log: "Just in Case"
* Southern California Philosophy for philosophy graduate students: "Just in Case".Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to the change as the phrases are equivalent and either will serve equally well, but it's a bit much to call use of "just in case" an error. The phrase is an abbreviation either way it's used and both makes perfect sense given its context: "I'll take an umbrella just (i.e. only) [to be prepared] in [the] case [that] it rains", and "A man is a bachelor just (i.e. only) in [the] case [that] he is unmarried" both make perfect sense and are both sensibly abbreviated to "just in case". Fuss about the latter sense is much ado about nothing, and if anything, the former is a less literal reading as more assumed information needs to be read into it to arrive at that sense. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Just in case"