Theo Todman's Web Page - Paper Abstracts

Authors Citing this Paper: Hershenov (David)

Author's Abstract

1. I work on personal identity so the occupational hazard that tempts me is to judge every metaphysic by how well it does with the famous personal identity thought experiments¹ and, more importantly, the problem of too many thinkers².
2. Historically, the thought experiments³ favored Neo-Lockean views that understood our persistence conditions⁴ to be determined by mental features of some sort and thus we were distinct from our animal or body.
3. But the animalist⁵ (and later the dualist) opponents of the Neo-Lockeans eventually responded that distinguishing human persons from human animals⁶ led to the Problem of Too Many Thinkers⁷. If the person could think with its brain, why couldn’t the animal? Animalist⁸ or bodily views of personal identity look much better when the too many thinkers⁹ problem is central.
4. But as Patrick Toner points out, animalists¹⁰ like van Inwagen, Merricks and Olson should be known as “latter day animalists¹¹.” Hylomorphism¹² is the original animalism¹³. And unlike latter day animalism¹⁴, traditional animalism¹⁵ preserves the ontological significance of personhood while it avoids the problem of too many thinkers¹⁶ that plagues Neo-Lockeans who distinguish the human person from the human animal¹⁷.