Answers to Gibbard

Here are the answers to Stef's questions on Gibbard's article:

Why does Gibbard stray away from using the words “portion of clay” and instead opts to utilize the words “piece or lump of clay” to flesh out his arguments? (101 (a))

Gibbard stipulates the definitions of “portion” and “piece” to make a distinction he thinks is important. A portion of clay is a bunch of clay particles. A piece of clay is a portion of clay that is lumped together so that it is contiguous.

What does Gibbard state the purpose of his argumentation is on p. 101?

Gibbard’s purpose is to show that there can still be contingent identities if one accepts Kripke’s arguments.

According to the author, what are concrete things?

A concrete thing is an object that is (or would be) found in space.


Define sortal.

No precise definition is given, but sortals seem to be co-extensive with general terms.

Describe in your own words the “rough theory” that develops on p. 104 (a).

The rough theory is that it makes no sense to claim an identity unless the identity is with respect to a certain kind.