Okay, but you said that the definition I gave was entirely different from the definition of personal identity one should be familiar if one has a philosophical background.

Re-read it again (hint: look at the bolded words)

Bonus hint: Read Willow's response defending you (it didn't go over his head)

What I quoted, because it's what I was addressing, was this sentence:

"Strangely, Terrapin's definition of personal identity is entirely different from the definition of personal identity he says should be familiar to anyone with a philosophical background."

There were no bolded words in that sentence.

I wasn't addressing anything else other than that specific sentence. That's why I quoted only that sentence.

Do you think that sentence had any relationship to what came before it? What came before that sentence?

Do you think that sentence had any relationship to what came before it? What came before that sentence? — csalisbury

It might have but I was addressing only that sentence. Are you saying that that sentence can't stand on its own as a claim?

It might have but I was addressing only that sentence. Are you saying that that sentence can't stand on its own as a claim?

?

Yes, I am absolutely 100% saying that. Part of reading and talking and thinking is understanding how sentences fit together. (And you wouldn't have mentioned the SEP to begin with unless you were understanding that sentence in the context of the post as a whole!)

Let's talk a little bit about how philosophical discussion (or any most discussion) works. People make arguments. Arguments are made of many different parts. To understand an argument you have to understand the different parts.

Part of reading and talking and thinking is understanding how sentences fit together. — csalisbury

Right, so you're claiming that the sentence you quoted isn't consistent with the SEP definition?

I know I should give up, but I just can't.

It's certainly fun to watch yourself continually hoisted by your own petard. So keep going.

You're saying that you understood csalisbury to be asking me about personal identity by the term "identity" when "personal identity" conventionally refers to a very different idea than "identity" does, and when I was clearly talking about identity in the more general, logical sense? — Terrapin Station

You don't know what you're talking about TS. You define words to suit your arguments and then ridicule others for not knowing what you mean. Your posts are a complete muddle, and I'm one less poster you're going to have to deal with.

You could sell me a bridge more easily than you could convince me that you have any sort of philosophy degree or significant philosophical background, even self-taught.

When argument fails, resort to insult, eh TS? That should do the trick.

When argument fails, resort to insult, eh TS? That should do the trick. — Wayfarer

You mean like this? "You don't know what you're talking about TS. You define words to suit your arguments and then ridicule others for not knowing what you mean. Your posts are a complete muddle, and I'm one less poster you're going to have to deal with."

Or was that supposed to be something other than insult?

You may have trouble spotting bolded words, a possibility I hadn't considered, so I apologize for trying to to get you to do that.

So my point (which Willow understood immediately, having perhaps an enviable natural facility for bold-spotting ) is that you consider personal identity to be physical, while the SEP considers it to be conceptual.

So my point (which Willow understood immediately, having perhaps an enviable natural facility for bold-spotting ) is that you consider personal identity to be physical, while the SEP considers it to be conceptual. — csalisbury

That I consider it to be physical has absolutely nothing to do with the conventional definition of "personal identity," and nowhere did I claim that it did.

The issue of whether it's physical or nonphysical has absolutely nothing to do with any conventional definition of it.

You asked me if I considered it to be physical, which struck me as a strange question, but I answered, because I answer and don't just ignore questions (well, at least when it's not a matter of cutting off long posts and attempting to do one thing in them at a time prior to intending to go back to the rest).

So you cited the SEP as a way to explain how personal identity is defined conventionally, but you disagree with how they define the term?

So you cited the SEP as a way to explain hiw personal identity is defined conventionally, but you disagree with how they define the term? — csalisbury

Again, "The issue of whether it's physical or nonphysical has absolutely nothing to do with any conventional definition of it," including the SEP definition. So a stance on whether it's physical or not can't agree or disagree with the SEP definition, which makes no comment on that.

So tho the SEP explicitly defines it in that way - and tho you quoted them to demonstrate the conventional definition - in fact their definition is beside the point?

Also, I wasn't quoting definitions of "personal identity" necessarily because I agree with the definitions I was quoting. I was quoting them because people were claiming to have no idea what the term conventionally referred to. So I presented what it conventionally refers to, since folks are too lazy to Google.

You asked me for examples of inconsistency earlier? Here ya go

So tho the SEP explicitly defines it in that way — csalisbury

In what way? Not re physical/nonphysical. AGAIN, their definition has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. It makes no coment about any issues in that realm.

You asked me for examples of inconsistency earlier? Here ya go — csalisbury

What's the example? What's P in this case?

In what way? Not re physical/nonphsyical. AGAIN, their definition has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. It makes no coment about any issues in that realm. — Terrapin

Wait, you are referring to definition you quoted, right?

Wait, you are referring to definition you quoted, right? — csalisbury

Yes. Those definitions say nothing about whether anything is physical or nonphysical. That's not an issue that anyone addresses when talking about personal identity, which again, is why you asking that question struck me as very odd. It's not that one couldn't address it, but it doesn't really matter for what personal identity is what one takes to be the ontological status of personal identity re whether it's something physical or nonphysical.

It would be kind of like worrying about whether ethical or aesthetic judgments are physical or nonphysical. You could talk about that, but it's difficult to see what impact it would have on what people are usually interested in re ethical and aesthetic judgments (with respect to characterizing what they are functionally, for example).

To be fair, I'm not sure which quote is from where, since you didn't cite your sources, but the first sentence of your first quote is this: "Personal identity is the concept you develop about yourself that evolves over the course of your life."

Which again, says nothing about the physical/nonphysical issue.

"Personal identity is the concept you develop about yourself that evolves over the course of your life."

Nothing about this quote strikes you as suggesting that personal identity is conceptual?

There's one word that sticks out to me a bit.

Of course, but that has NOTHING TO DO with whether something is physical/nonphysical