but it’s more about selfhood in the sense one perceives oneself right? — Ignoredreddituser
The objection from how I read it has to do more with an objective fluxing so it’s probably more in like with Strawson’s episodic view. — Ignoredreddituser
It's hard. If you press me, I might say that it's not objective, not an "ontological fact". I think it's epistemic, pertaining to how we view this phenomena, which doesn't make it "less real", just that "selves" are not mind independent facts of the world.
The objection is that we stand in causal relationships with over people, yet have no relationship of personal identity with them. For example, I can make my mother angry or make her remember last Christmas, yet we are in no way identical. — Ignoredreddituser
1) What objection? Objection to what?The objection is that we stand in causal relationships with over people, yet have no relationship of personal identity with them. — Ignoredreddituser
Why should you be identical? In fact, can anyone be identical to anyone else?For example, I can make my mother angry or make her remember last Christmas, yet we are in no way identical. — Ignoredreddituser
Can you explain "ground"? It normally means prohibit or prevent and I cannot see the meaning of the above statement.causal continuity cannot ground personal identity. — Ignoredreddituser
Here’s a copy of the paper, I responded to a post about it on Reddit
https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&context=comparativephilosophy — Ignoredreddituser
OK. One answer, 3 to go! :grin: (I had 4 questions)it’s in my OP it’s an objection that causal continuity isn’t enough for personal identity. In metaphysical parlance ground, as I understand it, explains the higher level facts. — Ignoredreddituser
https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&context=comparativephilosophyIn contrast to Buddhist Reductionists who deny the ultimate existence of the persons, Buddhist Personalists claim that persons are ultimately real in some important sense.
I have enumerated my questions! You can read them (again) if you like at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/633623Give me a take and I’ll try see what’s unclear. — Ignoredreddituser
OK. Thanks. I didn't know that.Higher level facts are facts about people, places, things, that aren’t bottom level of analysis, like for example atoms, quarks, what have you. — Ignoredreddituser
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.