Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Best theory of personal identity?

n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 9:48:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What do you think are the best theories of personal identity? I prefer perdurantism or Peter Unger's model.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 10:22:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 9:48:52 PM, n7 wrote:
What do you think are the best theories of personal identity? I prefer perdurantism or Peter Unger's model.

Unger is a nihilist, right? Just to refresh my memory.
Perdurantism is a view concerning persistence and I don't know how much persistence and personal identity overlap. As far as I remember the somatic and the psychological approach are the most common positions in personal identity and they are probably both compatible with 3 and 4 dimensionalism.
It's funny to read about this today, as I just resumed reading Four-Dimensionalism and Sider is right now talking about this (which is the reason for my confusion). Last time I thought about this topic it was McMahan's egoistic concern account that convinced me, although I definitely have to read up on it again, now that I know more about persistence. As far as I remember he offers an altered version of the psychological approach, but concedes that in some cases identity remains unresolvable, but he thinks it's ultimately not what matters. What matters, because he is an ethicist and wouldn't want a world w/o people, is egoistic concern for persistence of some physical part of your body, your brain.
As far as persistence in general is concerned I am an exdurantist, which is another kind of four-dimensionalism, just as perdurantism. The stage view as opposed to the worm view. I think it deals with Parfit's puzzles of coincidence better than any other view and might even, if I entertain the thought again, resolve McMahan's worries.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 10:41:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 10:22:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/7/2015 9:48:52 PM, n7 wrote:
What do you think are the best theories of personal identity? I prefer perdurantism or Peter Unger's model.

Unger is a nihilist, right? Just to refresh my memory.
I think he is a mereological nihilist, but his theory of identity is a synthesis of the somatic and psychological view.
Perdurantism is a view concerning persistence and I don't know how much persistence and personal identity overlap. As far as I remember the somatic and the psychological approach are the most common positions in personal identity and they are probably both compatible with 3 and 4 dimensionalism.
It's funny to read about this today, as I just resumed reading Four-Dimensionalism and Sider is right now talking about this (which is the reason for my confusion). Last time I thought about this topic it was McMahan's egoistic concern account that convinced me, although I definitely have to read up on it again, now that I know more about persistence. As far as I remember he offers an altered version of the psychological approach, but concedes that in some cases identity remains unresolvable, but he thinks it's ultimately not what matters. What matters, because he is an ethicist and wouldn't want a world w/o people, is egoistic concern for persistence of some physical part of your body, your brain.

I think I remember an objection like that to the worm theory. It's hard for the theory to argue when new time worms are created or continues under certain conditions. Never heard the egoist part though.

As far as persistence in general is concerned I am an exdurantist, which is another kind of four-dimensionalism, just as perdurantism. The stage view as opposed to the worm view. I think it deals with Parfit's puzzles of coincidence better than any other view and might even, if I entertain the thought again, resolve McMahan's worries.

It does seem more intuitive. You don't have to argue you are only the whole of your worm.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 10:57:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 10:41:53 PM, n7 wrote:
At 8/7/2015 10:22:29 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/7/2015 9:48:52 PM, n7 wrote:
What do you think are the best theories of personal identity? I prefer perdurantism or Peter Unger's model.

Unger is a nihilist, right? Just to refresh my memory.
I think he is a mereological nihilist, but his theory of identity is a synthesis of the somatic and psychological view.
The only things I know about Unger is that he doesn't exist and wants us to donate huge amounts of money even if we had to steal for it, lol. Perhaps He's not as insane as I thought.

Perdurantism is a view concerning persistence and I don't know how much persistence and personal identity overlap. As far as I remember the somatic and the psychological approach are the most common positions in personal identity and they are probably both compatible with 3 and 4 dimensionalism.
It's funny to read about this today, as I just resumed reading Four-Dimensionalism and Sider is right now talking about this (which is the reason for my confusion). Last time I thought about this topic it was McMahan's egoistic concern account that convinced me, although I definitely have to read up on it again, now that I know more about persistence. As far as I remember he offers an altered version of the psychological approach, but concedes that in some cases identity remains unresolvable, but he thinks it's ultimately not what matters. What matters, because he is an ethicist and wouldn't want a world w/o people, is egoistic concern for persistence of some physical part of your body, your brain.

I think I remember an objection like that to the worm theory. It's hard for the theory to argue when new time worms are created or continues under certain conditions.
Perhaps I have the wrong objection in mind, but aren't 4 dimensionalists generally proponents of unrestricted composition? At least to me this seems to avoid such an objection.
Or are you referring to cases where, say, a Lump and a Statue are created (coinciding of course) at the same time and destroyed at the same time?

Never heard the egoist part though.
It's what happens when ethicists do metaphysics.

As far as persistence in general is concerned I am an exdurantist, which is another kind of four-dimensionalism, just as perdurantism. The stage view as opposed to the worm view. I think it deals with Parfit's puzzles of coincidence better than any other view and might even, if I entertain the thought again, resolve McMahan's worries.

It does seem more intuitive. You don't have to argue you are only the whole of your worm.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic