Explain and evaluate one argument by example for haecceitism. In this essay I will discuss the definition and position of haecceitism, followed by an example known as four worlds paradox. Then I will present the negation of haecceitism and show that anti-haecceitism denies there are any bare identities. Next I will compare haecceitism with essentialism, which is a different account for transworld identity. . At last When we judge people’s identities across the worlds, we normally begin with the comparison between that person in a possible world with this person in the our world and certain criteria such as one’s name, appearance and life experience are obviously required. However, most people do agree that many of these features are accidental to individuals, for example, we can effortlessly imagine a 160cm-tall girl is 165cm in a …show more content…
I presented a short version of the paradox, omitting the cumulative process of the duplicate forming. It is generally consentaneous that 99.9% Wood A plus 0.01% Wood B will make a Table A, and so does 90% Wood A and 10% Wood B. We directly put the threshold at half, but is it legitimate? Some proponents of mereological essentialism like Chisholm might disavow the tolerance principle, as they think . At this point, a counterpart theorist can simply dismiss the paradox by letting counterpart take place of duplicate. He will not accept that table C is identical to table A as well, because according to counterpart theory the relation among objects across possible worlds are resemblance, but not identity. In fact, counterparts theory argues that there is no such thing as transworld identity, what we say is merely resemblance. The table made up of 99.9% Wood A resembles more to Table A than the table made up of 90% Wood A does, and it is a far better counterpart in a possible world than Table C is. Analogously, there is just no similarity between Table A and Table