Reasons and conscious persons

C. Coseru
{"title":"Reasons and conscious persons","authors":"C. Coseru","doi":"10.4324/9780429488450-11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What justifies holding the person that we are today morally responsible for something we did a year ago? And why are we justified in showing prudential concern for the future welfare of the person we will be a year from now? Whatever our answer to these questions, it seems that we cannot systematically pursue them without in one way or another referring to persons and their identity over time. But while there is widespread agreement that considerations about personal identity must be front and center in any such inquiries, such agreement falls short when it comes to specifying the criteria for personal identity, that is, what this identity necessarily involves or consists in. Part of the difficulty is that an investigation into the nature of personal identity brings us to metaphysical questions about persons, their ontological status, identity conditions, and persistence over time. The challenge, then, is to pursue these additional questions without losing sight of the practical concerns that prompted them in the first place. Few contemporary philosophers have confronted this challenge with more analytic skill, depth, and ingenuity than Derek Parfit. In engaging with Parfit’s work on personal identity, primarily his Reason and Persons , my aim is to reassess his Reductionist View of personal identity in light of Buddhist Reductionism, a philosophical project grounded on the idea that persons reduce to a set of bodily, sensory, perceptual, dispositional, and conscious elements, which alone are real. Parfit is not only familiar with this Buddhist conception of personal identity, but thinks that the reductionist, no ownership position he defends, which takes persons both to exist and to reduce to their components, is true, and that, as he famously puts it, “Buddha would have agreed” (1984: 273). My goal here is threefold: first, to review Parfit’s Reductionism position and evaluate its main arguments; second, to assess the extent to which Buddhist Reductionism supports Parfit’s psychological","PeriodicalId":259929,"journal":{"name":"Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429488450-11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

What justifies holding the person that we are today morally responsible for something we did a year ago? And why are we justified in showing prudential concern for the future welfare of the person we will be a year from now? Whatever our answer to these questions, it seems that we cannot systematically pursue them without in one way or another referring to persons and their identity over time. But while there is widespread agreement that considerations about personal identity must be front and center in any such inquiries, such agreement falls short when it comes to specifying the criteria for personal identity, that is, what this identity necessarily involves or consists in. Part of the difficulty is that an investigation into the nature of personal identity brings us to metaphysical questions about persons, their ontological status, identity conditions, and persistence over time. The challenge, then, is to pursue these additional questions without losing sight of the practical concerns that prompted them in the first place. Few contemporary philosophers have confronted this challenge with more analytic skill, depth, and ingenuity than Derek Parfit. In engaging with Parfit’s work on personal identity, primarily his Reason and Persons , my aim is to reassess his Reductionist View of personal identity in light of Buddhist Reductionism, a philosophical project grounded on the idea that persons reduce to a set of bodily, sensory, perceptual, dispositional, and conscious elements, which alone are real. Parfit is not only familiar with this Buddhist conception of personal identity, but thinks that the reductionist, no ownership position he defends, which takes persons both to exist and to reduce to their components, is true, and that, as he famously puts it, “Buddha would have agreed” (1984: 273). My goal here is threefold: first, to review Parfit’s Reductionism position and evaluate its main arguments; second, to assess the extent to which Buddhist Reductionism supports Parfit’s psychological
原因和自觉的人
有什么理由让我们今天的人对我们一年前所做的事负有道德责任?为什么我们有理由对一年后我们将成为的那个人的未来福利表现出审慎的关注?无论我们对这些问题的答案是什么,如果不以这样或那样的方式涉及人和他们的身份,我们似乎都无法系统地追求这些问题。但是,尽管人们普遍认为,在任何此类调查中,对个人同一性的考虑必须是首要和中心的,但在具体规定个人同一性的标准时,也就是说,这种同一性必然涉及或包含什么,这种共识就不尽如人意了。部分困难在于,对人格同一性本质的调查将我们带到了关于人、他们的本体论地位、身份条件和时间持久性的形而上学问题上。因此,我们面临的挑战是,在追求这些额外问题的同时,不要忽视最初促使这些问题产生的实际问题。很少有当代哲学家能像德里克·帕菲特(Derek Parfit)那样,以更强的分析能力、深度和独创性来面对这一挑战。在研究帕菲特关于个人同一性的著作时,主要是他的《理性与人格》,我的目的是根据佛教的还原论,重新评估他关于个人同一性的还原论观点。佛教还原论是一个哲学项目,其基础是人被还原为一系列身体、感官、知觉、性格和意识的元素,只有这些元素才是真实的。帕菲特不仅熟悉佛教的个人同一性概念,而且认为他所捍卫的还原论,即没有所有权的立场,认为人既存在又被还原为他们的组成部分,是正确的,正如他的名言,“佛陀会同意的”(1984:273)。我在这里的目的有三个:首先,回顾帕菲特的还原论立场并评价其主要论点;第二,评估佛教还原论在多大程度上支持帕菲特的心理学
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信