Fission, First Person Thought, and Subject-body Dualism

In “The Argument for Subject Body Dualism from Transtemporal Identity Defended” (2013), Martine Nida-Rümelin (NR) responded to my (Ludwig 2013) criticism of her (2010) argument for subject- body dualism. The crucial premise of her (2010) argument was that there is a factual difference between the cl...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kirk Ludwig
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Rijeka. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences 2017-12-01
Series:European Journal of Analytic Philosophy
Online Access:https://hrcak.srce.hr/188210
id doaj-fe2533a144e04fbeb84970a43331f904
record_format Article
spelling doaj-fe2533a144e04fbeb84970a43331f9042020-11-24T21:55:13ZengUniversity of Rijeka. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences European Journal of Analytic Philosophy1845-84751849-05142017-12-01132525Fission, First Person Thought, and Subject-body DualismKirk Ludwig0Indiana UniversityIn “The Argument for Subject Body Dualism from Transtemporal Identity Defended” (2013), Martine Nida-Rümelin (NR) responded to my (Ludwig 2013) criticism of her (2010) argument for subject- body dualism. The crucial premise of her (2010) argument was that there is a factual difference between the claims that in a fission case the original person is identical with one of the successors. I argued that, on the three most plausible interpretations of ‘factual difference’, the argument fails. NR responds that I missed the intended, fourth interpretation, and that the argument on the third interpretation goes through with an additional assumption. I argue that the fourth interpretation, while insufficient as stated, reveals an assumption that provides an argument independently of considerations involving fission cases: in first person thought about future properties we have a positive conception of the self that rules out having empirical criteria of transtemporal identity. However, I argue that the considerations offered for this thesis fail to establish it, and that we do not, in fact, bring ourselves under any positive conception in first person thought, but rather think about ourselves directly and without conceptual mediation. This explains why it appears open in fission cases that the original person is identical with one of the successors, while what is possible is constrained by the actual nature of the self as referred to in first person thought. I argue also, incidentally, that on the third interpretation, the first premise of the argument is inconsistent with the necessity of identity.https://hrcak.srce.hr/188210
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kirk Ludwig
spellingShingle Kirk Ludwig
Fission, First Person Thought, and Subject-body Dualism
European Journal of Analytic Philosophy
author_facet Kirk Ludwig
author_sort Kirk Ludwig
title Fission, First Person Thought, and Subject-body Dualism
title_short Fission, First Person Thought, and Subject-body Dualism
title_full Fission, First Person Thought, and Subject-body Dualism
title_fullStr Fission, First Person Thought, and Subject-body Dualism
title_full_unstemmed Fission, First Person Thought, and Subject-body Dualism
title_sort fission, first person thought, and subject-body dualism
publisher University of Rijeka. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
series European Journal of Analytic Philosophy
issn 1845-8475
1849-0514
publishDate 2017-12-01
description In “The Argument for Subject Body Dualism from Transtemporal Identity Defended” (2013), Martine Nida-Rümelin (NR) responded to my (Ludwig 2013) criticism of her (2010) argument for subject- body dualism. The crucial premise of her (2010) argument was that there is a factual difference between the claims that in a fission case the original person is identical with one of the successors. I argued that, on the three most plausible interpretations of ‘factual difference’, the argument fails. NR responds that I missed the intended, fourth interpretation, and that the argument on the third interpretation goes through with an additional assumption. I argue that the fourth interpretation, while insufficient as stated, reveals an assumption that provides an argument independently of considerations involving fission cases: in first person thought about future properties we have a positive conception of the self that rules out having empirical criteria of transtemporal identity. However, I argue that the considerations offered for this thesis fail to establish it, and that we do not, in fact, bring ourselves under any positive conception in first person thought, but rather think about ourselves directly and without conceptual mediation. This explains why it appears open in fission cases that the original person is identical with one of the successors, while what is possible is constrained by the actual nature of the self as referred to in first person thought. I argue also, incidentally, that on the third interpretation, the first premise of the argument is inconsistent with the necessity of identity.
url https://hrcak.srce.hr/188210
work_keys_str_mv AT kirkludwig fissionfirstpersonthoughtandsubjectbodydualism
_version_ 1725863894954541056