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...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
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 |