Thesis - Chapter 09 (Arguments against the Constitution View)
Todman (Theo)
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsLink to Latest Write-Up Note


Write-up1 (as at 15/07/2026 10:09:07): Thesis - Chapter 09 (Arguments against the Constitution View)

Chapter Contents

  1. Abstract2
  2. Methodology3
  3. Introduction4
  4. Note Hierarchy5
  5. Main Text6
  6. Concluding Remarks7
  7. Links to Books / Papers to be Addressed8
  8. Works Read9
  9. Further Reading10
  10. References & Reading List

Abstract
  1. A discussion of the arguments against the Constitution View, focusing on those mustered by the principal animalists, with a critique.
  2. Additionally, I intend here to critique Olson’s “Thinking Animal” Argument11. While this is largely an argument for Animalism12, though I think it unnecessary to establish the case for Animalism, and this aspect is covered in Chapter 613, Olson uses it against the Constitution View, though it ‘works’ – if at all – against any alternative to Animalism.


Research Methodology

Chapter Introduction16
  1. Like the previous Chapter, there is mostly a 1-1-match between this Chapter and a single Note – in this case Constitution View – Objections17. That’s because Olson’s Master Argument – which is both an argument for Animalism and an objection to the Constitution View – has its own Note but appears in Chapter 7.
  2. The Note on Holes & Smiles18 is relevant because it illustrates how a property – like the Cheshire Cat’s smile – cannot exist in the absence of the infrastructural body that makes it possible, nor can they be transferred from one body to another and remain the same property. So, I would argue, a First Person Perspective is the property of a particular human body, and cannot be transplanted from one body to another.


Note Hierarchy
  1. The Constitution View19. Excluded20
  2. Arguments against the Constitution View21
  3. Holes & Smiles22
  4. The Thinking Animal Argument23. Excluded24


Main Text
  1. Arguments against the Constitution View25
    1. The two obvious issues are:-
      1. The “too many minds” objection (otherwise known as the “thinking animal argument26”), and
      2. The “fetus problem27”
    2. Thinking Animals28
      • In saying that an Individual29 is a human animal30 and that also that that Individual is a person31 that is ontologically distinct from, and merely constituted by32, the human animal, Eric Olson argues that we have too many thinkers and therefore the constitution view33 is false.
      • I don’t like this argument, in that the form would prove too much. I see analogies with various mereological34 arguments:-
        → Peter Unger’s argument that “there are no ordinary things”,
        → The Sorites35 arguments against the existence of material objects with parts, and maybe with
        → Tib/Tibbles36, and
        → Dion/Theon37
      • All these arguments seem to have the same form – there are alleged to be too many co-located items, leading to the denial of some seemingly obvious premise.
      • Yet maybe I accept a version of this in disliking immaterial souls38 (again, too many thinkers – if the brain39 thinks, why do we need a soul that thinks as well). However, the degree of ontological40 distinctness between “the self41 and its brain42” is greater than that between the person43 and the human being44 that (maybe temporarily) constitutes45 it. I will reconsider this collection of arguments in due course.
    3. Fetus Problem46
      • This is the question whether I47 was ever a Fetus. According to the Constitution View48, I was not, as the Fetus had no First Person Perspective49 (FPP), not even a rudimentary one, and since the FPP is constitutive / individuative of me.
      • But, if I was not the Fetus, where did I50 come from?
      • I’m not hugely impressed by this argument either. It’s also a problem for Animalism (it is said) – is the early fetus an animal51? Was the fetus a proper part of the mother? See "Kingma (Elselijn) - Were You Part of Your Mother?".
    4. So, should I accept the Constitution View52? I think not. I am an animal53, and objections to Animalism54 can be overcome. The whole idea of Constitution55 as conceived of by the CV is very odd, and the CV was invented to provide the hope of resurrection56. I need to justify these assertions, of course!
  2. Holes & Smiles57
    1. I was unsure whether to title this Note as “Holes” or “Smiles”, so decided on a combination. While only the former is a recognised philosophical topic, the latter is a recognised as a problem for the Constitution View58.
    2. The relevance to my Thesis is somewhat tangential, but the idea is that there are features59 of other things that are – most likely – not separable entities but which still have persistence conditions60. It makes sense to ask whether a particular hole is the same hole as it was a week ago, or a particular smile the same smile as a few seconds ago – smiles “wear thin” if the photographer takes too long. But neither holes nor smiles can exist separately to their host. The Cheshire Cat’s smile is not to be taken at face value.
    3. I see an analogy with this situation and persons61 or First Person Perspectives62. Often, when a non-philosopher doubts whether someone is the same person63 as they had been previously, they are thinking of a radical personality change. A personality64 is like a very complex and enduring smile – a property65 of something else. It cannot exist on its own, disembodied66, or pass from one body67 to another.


Concluding Remarks
  1. Having now discussed the arguments against both Animalism and the Constitution View, we now in our next Chapter68 turn to the question of Thought Experiments in general, and how they bear on this topic in particular.
  2. This is work in progress69.


Links to Books / Papers to be Addressed70
  1. This section attempts to derive the readings lists automatically from those of the underlying Notes, but removing duplicated references. The list is divided into:-
  2. I’ve not been overly careful to segregate the reading-list of this Chapter from that of Chapter 773. I will address the segregation in due course. There will, in any case, be some overlap.
  3. Many aspects of these papers will need to be either ignored or reserved for other chapters.


Works on this topic that I’ve actually read74, include the following:-
  1. Arguments against the Constitution View75
  2. Holes & Smiles81

A further reading list might start with:-
  1. Arguments against the Constitution View87
  2. Holes & Smiles89


In-Page Footnotes

Footnote 1: Footnote 16: Footnote 20: Footnote 24: Footnote 70: Footnote 83: Footnote 85: Footnote 86: Footnote 88: Footnote 90:

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026


© Theo Todman, June 2007 - July 2026. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.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