Abstract
The paper I will endeavour to comment on has an undeniable intuitive appeal1. On the face of it, the arguments are robust and logic impeccable. However, when it is subjected to some closer scrutiny, problems start to emerge. That rejoinder shall be divided into two main sections; that is a negative one (specifying what is possibly wrong with the author’s edifice of arguments) and a positive one (in which a positive suggestion as to how to avoid resorting to theories of identity shall be put forward). So, let us start with the investigations into what might be wrong with the author’s account.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
