Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:16 pm
It seemed to me that Gewirth's argument was hinging on the notion that P and X are different, where this is a universal situation.
You are contradicting yourself.
Just yesterday (or rather recently) YOU agreed/committed to that very universal premise: No two things are ever the same.
You agreed with the premises upon which Gerwith's argument hinges upon.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:16 pm
If that's the case, then there is a problem with the argument (and I'd disagree with the argument), because in reality, P and X aren't different in every scenario.
So right here you are doing a U-turn on your very own premise of absolute difference between ANY two things.
So, now you suddenly disagree with Gerwith even though his premises are the same as yours. Your disagreement seems entirely manufactured!
Just because P and X refer to "the same thing" it doesn't mean that P and X mean "the same thing". P and X could be semantically different even if they are referentially "the same".
And you don't seem to understand that because you can't navigate around the different uses of "sameness" (and I am supposed to be the Aspie)