- Eric Olson’s animalist1 view relies on the premise that person is not a fit candidate to be a substance2 concept, in Wiggins’s terminology. Instead, he claims, animal3 is what best serves as the answer to what we most fundamentally are4 and what determines our persistence conditions.
- Proposing a thought experiment5 concerning inorganic replacement, I aim to show that Olson’s animalist view cannot accommodate our very strong intuitions about such cases. And that result occurs even after trying two possible readings of Olson’s account of an organism’s persistence conditions.
- My claim is then that animalism either fails on its own grounds or requires some adjustments to what exactly an organism6 is and what its persistence conditions are.
- For the full text, follow this link (Local website only): PDF File7.
- Retrieved from Academia.edu, 5 August 2020
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2021
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)