Jekyll, Hyde, and Three Stranger Cases
Issue: • Author/s: Jansan Favazzo
Topics: Aesthetics, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Ontology, Philosophy of language
Fictional characters may raise serious troubles about their identity even within one and the same story. Nabokov’s novel Pale Fire, for instance, depicts a world pretty much like ours, in which there seems to be no indeterminate identity, yet leaves it open whether the Shade character is the same as the Kinbote character. On the contrary, in Murakami’s The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, there seems to be two characters, Kumiko and the Woman in the hotel room, that are indeterminately identical. Worse still, there are also cases of inconsistent identity: in…
Race and Racialized Populations: Ascriptions, Power, and Identity
Issue: • Author/s: Jonathan Kaplan
Topics: Epistemology, Ontology, Philosophy of Biology, Philosophy of Race, Theoretical philosophy
In this paper, I endorse the view defended by Hochman and others that there are no races but rather there are only racialized populations. The distinction between “race” being real but socially constructed and being its being non-existent or a ‘myth’ might seem of little importance. But aside from conceptual clarity, the view that there are only racialized populations makes better sense of how racialized populations came into being, how racialization has the profound impacts that it does, and what kind of worlds we might imagine (and work towards) where…
Time, Fission, and Personal Identity
Issue: Issue 09 • Author/s: John Perry
Topics: Metaphysics
I argue that the account I gave of Derek Parfit’s dividing self-case in “Can the Self Divide?” does not depend on a dubious four-dimensionalist metaphysics as claimed by Eric Olson (2006). I explain my metaphysics of time, and then re-describe my solution in “Can the Self Divide?” comparing it to treatments of the dividing selves by Parfit and Lewis.
Parfit’s Metaphysics and What Matters in Survival
Issue: Issue 09 • Author/s: Eric Olson
Topics: Metaphysics
Derek Parfit takes the central principle of his discussions of personal identity to be “reductionism”: that our existence and persistence are not basic facts, but consist in something else. A number of striking claims, including the famous unimportance of identity, are supposed to follow from it. But they don’t follow. The main principle in Parfit’s arguments is something far more contentious that is never mentioned: a capacious ontology of material things. But the capacious ontology makes trouble for Parfit: it weakens his claim about the unimportance of identity and undermines…
Race and Racialized Populations: Ascriptions, Power, and Identity [Special Issue]
Issue: Issue 20 • Author/s: Jonathan Kaplan
Topics: Epistemology, Ontology, Philosophy of Biology, Philosophy of Medicine, Philosophy of Race, Philosophy of science
In this paper, I endorse the view defended by Hochman and others that there are no races but rather there are only racialized populations. The distinction between “race” being real but socially constructed and being its being non-existent or a ‘myth’ might seem of little importance. But aside from conceptual clarity, the view that there are only racialized populations makes better sense of how racialized populations came into being, how racialization has the profound impacts that it does, and what kind of worlds we might imagine (and work towards) where…
The Fission Argument for the Unimportance of Identity Cannot Be Correct [Article Discussion]
Issue: Issue 19 • Author/s: Harold Noonan
Topics: Metaphysics, Ontology, Philosophy of mind, Theoretical philosophy
Eric Olson has made an important addition to the discussion started by Parfit of the argument from the possibility of fission to the unimportance of personal identity. Olson’s discussion is challenging. I want, more briefly, to highlight what is the most important consequence of it. This is that it is metaphysically impossible, impossible in the strongest sense, that any version of Parfit’s argument from fission can yield his conclusion. Olson argues specifically that this is impossible if what he calls a ‘capacious ontology’ is assumed. I argue that it is…