Originally posted by LemonJello As for the question you highlight, I think probably any sane view of what constitutes a person will have to reference psychological properties or capacities.
I think it all depends on context. I see nothing wrong with announcing that I have found Ramesses II, when in fact what I have found is a mummified body whose brains have been removed.
A tombstone typically says "here lies ....." giving the name of the deceased.
Clearly we still identify the body with the living person even after death.
Originally posted by twhitehead I think it all depends on context. I see nothing wrong with announcing that I have found Ramesses II, when in fact what I have found is a mummified body whose brains have been removed.
A tombstone typically says "here lies ....." giving the name of the deceased.
Clearly we still identify the body with the living person even after death.
Clearly we still identify the body with the living person even after death.
Just because one may associate this body with the person it housed, and honor it as such, does not mean that one will take this body to be numerically identical with that person. This is still perfectly consistent with the idea that this body does not now constitute a person at all and that the entity whose personhood was associated with this body ceased to exist a long time ago.
Anyway, yes, views on this run the gamut. On one extreme, some will claim that a physical body is not even necessary for instantiation of a person. On the other end, some will claim that the psychological states commonly associated with personhood are simply identical with physical states, or are physical states that have been miscategorized. And probably everything in between.
My House
27 Mar '14 20:45
Back to Top