Farmer Joe and his truck.

• Joe is a retired GM engineer

•Joe has always farmed in addition
to his other work.
•Engineers do not hire others to
maintain their vehicles. It’s a matter
of pride.
•Farmers do not hire others to
maintain their vehicles. It’s a matter
of pride and economics
•Joe always reserves one truck for
farm duty: “Old Beater.”
•He hangs on to these farm trucks as
•Joe is a regular at several area auto-
long as possible, nursing them for
parts stores, and has friends inside
decades throughout the travails of
GM that can find him any part he
farm duty. Once again, a matter of
needs.
pride, some economics.
•The “Newest” old beater was
purchased Oct. 1, 1985.
•It’s October 30, 1985, and Joe is
tooling around in the farm fields.
•He kicks up a stone that takes out a
his left tail light.
•What does he do?
•A week later he knocks out a
headlight? The month after, a tire
goes flat.
•Early 1989 he bends the rear axle.
•1995 he makes the first replacement
of a part from the transmission; The
oil cooler.
•For years this goes on. He never
replaces a huge “chunk” of the truck
at any one time, but always replaces
one single part at a time.
•Over time, he actually rebuilds the
engine one small piece at a time;
one piston ring, one piston, one
valve, one gasket at a time.
•It is now July, 2009. Joe still
proudly uses Old Beater. The truck
odometer (which has been replaced
as well) has turned over several
times.
•I am visiting, and notice the truck,
aside from having a hood that
doesn’t match in color, is still
hanging in there and looks the same.
•Joe assures me that every part has
been replaced over the last 23 years.
•Yes, even the VIN identifier.
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?

•Why you might say “yes”

•Why you might say “no”
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?

•Why you might say “yes”

•It is the truck he was driving yesterday, which is the
same truck as he drove the day before yesterday, which is
the same truck as he drove the day before that day, & etc..
…which is the same truck he drove out of the showroom
back in October 1985
•Why you might say “no”
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?

•Why you might say “yes”

•It is the truck he was driving yesterday, which is the
same truck as he drove the day before yesterday, which is
the same truck as he drove the day before that day, & etc..
…which is the same truck he drove out of the showroom
back in October 1985
•Why you might say “no”
•The truck he is driving around in July 2009 is composed
of nothing but replacement parts. None of the original
parts are contained in it.
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?

•Why you might say “yes”

•It is the truck he was driving yesterday, which is the
same truck as he drove the day before yesterday, which is
the same truck as he drove the day before that day, & etc..
…which is the same truck he drove out of the showroom
back in October 1985
•Why you might say “no”
•The truck he is driving around in July 2008 is composed
of nothing but replacement parts. None of the original
parts are contained in it.
•What other reasons can you think of?
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?
This is a classic philosophical question:
•These are questions that persist even when “all the
facts of the case are in.”
•We learn all the facts of this case when we hear the
“life history” of Old Beater. There is no new fact that
we can learn that will determine for us whether or not
the truck Joe is using on the farm is identical to the
truck he drove off the showroom floor in 1985.
•If we cannot answer the question or resolve the
puzzle by finding some new deciding facts, how then?
•Philosophical argument. A reasoned examination of
the logical consequences of the affirmation or denial
of certain definitions of identity.
•[What other areas of questioning have this feature?]
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?
This is a classic philosophical question:
•What other areas of questioning have this feature?
•Metaphysical example?
•Are there material things?
•Ethical example?
• Should the IDF use precision munitions to return
fire on a school building when HAMAS is
intentionally firing missiles into civilian areas from
the building courtyard, even when the IDF knows
returning fire will cause collateral damage (kids,
teachers..)?

•Back to Farmer Joe!

Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?
All attempts at a resolution rely in some
way on a very intuitive logical principle
of identity, vis:
•If A and B are identical, then, for every single
property that A has, B will also have it.
•This is sometimes given a more technical formulation in
symbols, and given the forbidding sounding moniker: “the
principle of the indescernibility of identicals.” We’ll call it
PRINID for short.

•In words the above says: “For any x and any y, if x is identical
to y, then, for any property P, x has P if and only if y has P.
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?
One argument against identity uses a narrow
“parts formulation” of PRINID:
P 1. For any two objects (A and B) the following is true:
If A is identical to B, then for any part that A has, B also has it.

P 2. The truck that left the showroom in 1985 had parts 1, 2, 3,

4, ..1000, …10,000, … etc.

P3. The truck being driven today by Joe lacks all these parts.

C4. Therefore: The truck that left the showroom in 1985 is not
identical to the truck that is being driven today by Joe.

{Question for considerations: On this view, how many trucks does

Joe own over the course of the 24 years? What does common sense
say? Is there a disagreement between the two views?}
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?
One argument for identity uses a somewhat
liberal version of the “all properties”
formulation of PRINID:
P 1. For any two objects (A and B) the following is true:
If A is identical to B, then B is the “closest continuer” of A (shares the
most properties with A).

P 2. The truck that left the showroom in 1985 (A) had properties 1, 2,
3, 4, ..1000, …10,000, … etc. The truck on Oct. 30 (B) had all these
properties except one. The two have most properties in common. So,
those two trucks were identical.

P3. The same holds for each pair of “pre” and “post” part-
replacement trucks (B/C, C/D..), up to and including the last such
pair.

P4. Identity is transitive; that is, if A is identical to B, and B to C,

then A is identical to C. This chain argument can be applied all the
way down the chain of trucks from 1985 to 2009.

C4. Therefore: The truck that left the showroom in 1985 is identical
to the truck that is being driven today by Joe.
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?
One argument for identity uses a somewhat
liberal version of the “all properties”
formulation of PRINID:
P 1. For any two objects (A and B) the following is true:
If A is identical to B, then B is the “closest continuer” of A (shares the most properties with A).

P 2. The truck that left the showroom in 1985 had properties 1, 2, 3, 4, ..1000, …10,000, … etc.
The truck on Oct. 30 had all these properties except one. The two have most properties in
common. So, those two trucks were identical.

P3. The same holds for each pair of “pre” and “post” part-replacement trucks, up to and
including the last such pair.

P4. Identity is transitive; that is, if A is identical to B, and B to C, then A is identical to C. This
chain argument can be applied all the way down the chain of trucks from 1985 to 2009.

C4. Therefore: The truck that left the showroom in 1985 is identical to the truck that is being
driven today by Joe.

Questions for consideration: 1. Can there be more than one closest

continuer of a truck? 2. If so, which is identical to its “parent” or
“ancestor” truck?
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?
Which argument do you agree with?
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?
Which argument do you agree with?

Why?
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?
Which argument do you agree with?

Why?

One last monkey wrench: Suppose you do not think

the case rises to the level of being a philosophical
problem.

Ok, would there be a problem if it were the case that

farmer Joe has, all along, been keeping the original
parts..
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?
Which argument do you agree with?

Why?

One last monkey wrench: Suppose you do not think

the case rises to the level of being a philosophical
problem.

Ok, would there be a problem if it were the case that

farmer Joe has, all along, been keeping the original
parts..

As a pile of parts in his pole barn,

Or..
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985?
Which argument do you agree with?

Why?

One last monkey wrench: Suppose you do not think

the case rises to the level of being a philosophical
problem.

Ok, would there be a problem if it were the case that

farmer Joe has, all along, been keeping the original
parts..

As a pile of parts in his pole barn,

Or..

As a reconstructed whole in the pole barn?

Well, Now what do you think?
Questions:
Is the truck Joe is driving identical to the
truck he purchased in 1985? What about
that non-functioning truck in the pole-
barn? Did the truck Joe drove stop being
the same truck as the showroom truck at
some point? Where exactly, in the process
did this happen? What does this say about
creation and destruction of trucks?