Abstract

The paper re-examines the quarrel about the role of the principle of the identity of indiscernibles in the attempt to define the notion of identity. It begins recalling Black's famous counter-example to the principle, and sorting the different reactions to his claim by means of resemblances in the arguments. Then, the paper shows how each proposed reply seems to be conceptually circular, and so unsatisfactory. The last section of the paper introduces an argument explaining why a certain circularity seems to be unavoidable in the effort of defining the notion of identity. It concludes that, if this argument results to be correct, it allows to argue that Black's counterexample is circular too.