Start blogging by creating a new post. You can edit or delete me by clicking under the comments. You can also customize your sidebar by dragging in elements from the top bar.
9 Comments
Katie Begerow
2/26/2013 01:14:55 pm
the main goal, i believe, is to clarify what constitutes an individual howeevr, the issues that occurs with Aristotle and other philosophers is what is essential to a individual to maintain the qualities that they define them. All of the theories present flaws but maintain the ideas that personal identity requires significant continuity of brain and memory. Change is allowed in "accidental properties" but not in essential properties unless gradually introduced over time. Are humans a special being that are not required like animals to follow the Aristotelian account?
Reply
Kevin Gaffey
2/26/2013 02:26:14 pm
In my opinion, the main argument Robert Swinburne makes is that people consist of both their bodies and their souls. He disagrees with Parfits theory, believing that it attaches Parfit to claims which could possibly be incorrect.
Reply
Jason Varozza
2/26/2013 11:42:46 pm
What I got from the article was everything can stay the same by gradual replacement or as long as you consist of the same matter. We lose and gain matter all the time but are still the same because we still have some of the matter that we had before we lost any.
Reply
Nellie Rodriguez
2/27/2013 02:35:40 pm
I agree with Jason. I also believe that Richard Swinburne’s article supports more of the body theory because he explains what makes a person the same person as an earlier person is because of the sameness of their body. He also mentions that if inanimate objects are replaced of matter too many times, they’re able to eliminate their identity. However, for living things total replacement of matter isn’t able to destroy their identity because the former substance of matter will continue to acquire the essential properties aggregated with its form.
Reply
Tim Krausz
2/27/2013 12:10:26 am
Richard Sinburne, in essence, claims in an exceptionally verbose manner how the individual is ultimately the product of both the physical, material body and the immaterial substance of the mind or soul. He bases this dualist view on a "wider Aristotelian framework" where an individual, along with plants and objects, can be defined by the material and imaterial substance it is comprised of, where the imaterial substance serves as essential qualities in the person. His opening argument is spent proving how all theories that try to explain how anindividual is the same only when the soul aspect is considered, such as Locke's memory theory. He claims that all of these theories are built upon "fallible evidence." However, his proofs involve questionable thought experiments, such as the hemisphere transplants, but it seems he offers no better evidence to prove his own dualist perspective. In fact, he states that logical proof is a product of dogma and is not necessary, which opens the door for any argument to follow without questioning. Thus, I cannot help but feel his argument is weak at its heart.
Reply
Daniel Kuleto
2/27/2013 11:07:34 am
I agree.
Reply
Jeanne
2/27/2013 06:43:06 am
After reading Sinburne's article what i have received from the article was that an individual consists of who they are, and are defined by what they are composed of, weather it be shape or matter that makes them up. Those people maintain the same as long those qualities that they began with are the relatively the same as the form that they began in.
Reply
Paige Johnson
2/27/2013 11:46:50 am
In his article, Richard Swinburne examines the Dualist theory of personal identity in which he encompasses a point of view based on the idea of a soul. Throughout the article, Swinburne analyzes the nature of knowledge, its preconceptions, foundations, and its validity. As he briefly considers, and dismisses, the principle of soul as a possible solution to the problem of personal identity in philosophy, he comes to the conclusion that in the absence of one’s body, brain, and memory, there is no way to justify the belief that two people would ever be the same. Swinburne concludes by answering in the affirmative, with the belief that application of brain and body over time will serve as an negative indicator that the individual we’re dealing with is the same as that person at a previous time.
Reply
Joseph Davis
2/28/2013 03:17:03 pm
In his article, Richard Swinburne examines the dualist theory as the most plausible of the other philosophical standings of identity within the body and mind. Dualism is the belief that the body and mind are two seperate entities, that the material substance (the body) and the immaterial substance (the mind) do not require any sort of correlation to equal some essence of being, or identity. Swinburne believes that wherever the mind is, the identity lies within that being, whether it be a brain transplant, or recovery after amnesia, if the person is able to function by thought in that being, whatever that may entail, that is also where "their" identity lies.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2015
Categories |
Photo used under Creative Commons from Dano