No, the quoted passage does not exhaust the content of my paper. I further explain why the fungibility interpretation is the *most pressing* interpretation of the "separateness of persons" objection, and why a purely extensional interpretation (being about "permissibility" rather than "significance", as you put it) offers no objection at all.
No, the quoted passage does not exhaust the content of my paper. I further explain why the fungibility interpretation is the *most pressing* interpretation of the "separateness of persons" objection, and why a purely extensional interpretation (being about "permissibility" rather than "significance", as you put it) offers no objection at all.
No, the quoted passage does not exhaust the content of my paper. I further explain why the fungibility interpretation is the *most pressing* interpretation of the "separateness of persons" objection, and why a purely extensional interpretation (being about "permissibility" rather than "significance", as you put it) offers no objection at all.