|Could Your Life Have Been Different?|
|Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Jan2000, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p37, 14p;|
|Paper - Abstract|
|Paper Summary||Text Colour-Conventions|
Philosophers Index Abstract
Most philosophers who accept the psychological criterion of personal identity (such as Parfit and Shoemaker) say little about the issue of our existence and what matters1 in survival in other possible worlds. The article argues that there are two views that such a 'psychological' theorist could accept here. The first takes it that your psychology (i.e., your memories, beliefs, intentions, traits, etc.) could have been very different, yet you could still exist, or at least that you could still have what matters2 in survival. According to the second view, though, a possible person who is very unlike the actual you cannot be you, and cannot have what matters3 in survival for you. Difficulties for both views are presented but it is further argued that despite the apparent counterintuitiveness of the second view, the psychological theorist is best off accepting the version of it which is presented by the author.
(???): Points out the philosophical problems arising from the psychological theory of personal identity regarding the question of whether a person's life could have been different. Conception of a person by the psychological theorist; Origins thesis forwarded by Derek Parfit; Minimalist intuition of a psychological self; Desire to be different; Analysis of identity over time; Issue of possible lives after death.
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
|© Theo Todman, June 2007 - May 2018.||Please address any comments on this page to email@example.com.||File output: |
Website Maintenance Dashboard
|Return to Top of this Page||Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page||Return to Theo Todman's Home Page|