Some Ontological Remarks on the Maxim of Identification of Indiscernibles

A pluralization of categorial frameworks can be interpreted as a transcendentalism relativized in respect of several systems of reference. Here I attempt to apply this idea to what may be the most fundamental category, that of identity and unitariness, employing to this end the maxim discussed in Quine 1950. I introduce the notion of “object” (or “entity”) through the (intuitively more immediate) example of material objects, point to the problematical nature of this notion with reference to the principle of identity, and state the aim of my contribution, which is to make this problematical aspect (at least partially) meaningless by a pragmatic move, involving the "constitution" of identity ("identification"). I refer explicitly to the Kantian perspective and I express some doubts with regard to essence and necessity and these doubts lead to the identification solution in discourse contexts. Finally I draw on two examples, used in Quine 1950, and present a general consequence (ontological pluralism) with specific consequences in relation to token-type bifurcation, the need for a sortal expression for statements of identity, and nominalism.