Animalism and the Vagueness of Composition

Lockean theories of personal identity maintain that we persist by virtue of psychological continuity, and most Lockeans say that we are material things coinciding with animals. Some animalists argue that if persons and animals coincide, they must have the same intrinsic properties, including thinkin...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Radim Bělohrad
Format: Article
Language:ces
Published: Institute of Philosophy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences 2019-05-01
Series:Organon F
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.organonf.com/journal/orgf-2019-26202/
id doaj-29dedd79d39b4f239315746aa5417a9f
record_format Article
spelling doaj-29dedd79d39b4f239315746aa5417a9f2020-11-24T21:21:34ZcesInstitute of Philosophy of the Slovak Academy of SciencesOrganon F1335-06682585-71502019-05-0126220722710.31577/orgf.2019.26202Animalism and the Vagueness of CompositionRadim Bělohrad0Masaryk UniversityLockean theories of personal identity maintain that we persist by virtue of psychological continuity, and most Lockeans say that we are material things coinciding with animals. Some animalists argue that if persons and animals coincide, they must have the same intrinsic properties, including thinking, and, as a result, there are ‘too many thinkers’ associated with each human being. Further, Lockeans have trouble explaining how animals and persons can be numerically different and have different persistence conditions. For these reasons, the idea of a person being numerically distinct but co-incident with an animal is rejected and animalists conclude that we simply are animals. However, animalists face a similar problem when confronted with the vagueness of composition. Animals are entities with vague boundaries. According to the linguistic account of vagueness, the vagueness of a term consists in there being a number of candidates for the denotatum of the vague term. It seems to imply that where we see an animal, there are, in fact, a lot of distinct but overlapping entities with basically the same intrinsic properties, including thinking. As a result, the animalist must also posit ‘too many thinkers’ where we thought there was only one. This seems to imply that the animalist cannot accept the linguistic account of vagueness. In this paper the author argues that the animalist can accept the linguistic account of vagueness and retain her argument against Lockeanism.https://www.organonf.com/journal/orgf-2019-26202/AnimalismLockeanismpartial identitypersonal identitysupervaluationsvagueness
collection DOAJ
language ces
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Radim Bělohrad
spellingShingle Radim Bělohrad
Animalism and the Vagueness of Composition
Organon F
Animalism
Lockeanism
partial identity
personal identity
supervaluations
vagueness
author_facet Radim Bělohrad
author_sort Radim Bělohrad
title Animalism and the Vagueness of Composition
title_short Animalism and the Vagueness of Composition
title_full Animalism and the Vagueness of Composition
title_fullStr Animalism and the Vagueness of Composition
title_full_unstemmed Animalism and the Vagueness of Composition
title_sort animalism and the vagueness of composition
publisher Institute of Philosophy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences
series Organon F
issn 1335-0668
2585-7150
publishDate 2019-05-01
description Lockean theories of personal identity maintain that we persist by virtue of psychological continuity, and most Lockeans say that we are material things coinciding with animals. Some animalists argue that if persons and animals coincide, they must have the same intrinsic properties, including thinking, and, as a result, there are ‘too many thinkers’ associated with each human being. Further, Lockeans have trouble explaining how animals and persons can be numerically different and have different persistence conditions. For these reasons, the idea of a person being numerically distinct but co-incident with an animal is rejected and animalists conclude that we simply are animals. However, animalists face a similar problem when confronted with the vagueness of composition. Animals are entities with vague boundaries. According to the linguistic account of vagueness, the vagueness of a term consists in there being a number of candidates for the denotatum of the vague term. It seems to imply that where we see an animal, there are, in fact, a lot of distinct but overlapping entities with basically the same intrinsic properties, including thinking. As a result, the animalist must also posit ‘too many thinkers’ where we thought there was only one. This seems to imply that the animalist cannot accept the linguistic account of vagueness. In this paper the author argues that the animalist can accept the linguistic account of vagueness and retain her argument against Lockeanism.
topic Animalism
Lockeanism
partial identity
personal identity
supervaluations
vagueness
url https://www.organonf.com/journal/orgf-2019-26202/
work_keys_str_mv AT radimbelohrad animalismandthevaguenessofcomposition
_version_ 1725999375085207552