To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
I explore and defend the unusual view that the replacement of matter taking place in the human body undermines egoistic reasons, and that we therefore have little or no basis for long-term egoistic concern. I begin by arguing that you should not have egoistic concern for a replica, i.e. a person resulting from a complete and sudden replacement of matter. I then argue that when it comes to egoistic concern, replication is not relevantly different from the slower and more gradual form of replacement found in human metabolism: if the former undermines egoistic reasons, so does the latter. I grant that the resulting view is, in some respects, hard to accept, but I conclude that we should at least treat it as a serious possibility.
Coalescing developments in brain, mind, and body bring about qualitative changes in all aspects of the teenager’s life, with both great advantages and challenges. Being able to imagine how things could be, and seeing multiple possibilities, can lead to idealism or cynicism. Teens are aware of the complexity of thought and feeling and know that neither they nor others are always aware of motives. Along with a profound sense of uniqueness, they have the capacity to connect with others in a deeper, more intimate way and to be involved in a complex network of relationships. At the same time, they can feel alone in dealing with emotions at a new level of complexity. To thrive during this period they must be able to tolerate a level of vulnerability never before experienced, because they know others may be thinking about them and seeing beneath the surface of their behavior, just as they can.
Considers how clothing is related to memory and personal identity. Examines how we communicate with clothing by considering both Roland Barthes’ semiotic account and a Gricean account of meaning. Considers how we might think of uniforms in light of these observations.
Legal rights, obligations, and liabilities bind together entities, including people, real and moveable property, and abstract objects, across time. Determining whether these rights, obligations, and liabilities exist at any particular time therefore requires the law to embed within it a theory of persistence – that is, a theory of how entities persist over time. The philosophical and psychological literature has identified multiple different theories of how objects persist over time, some of which are identity relations and some of which are not. Research in experimental jurisprudence has shown both that ordinary people’s judgments about the law often match the content of the law itself and that ordinary people’s judgments appear sensitive to multiple different persistence relations. These findings provide reason to think that the law, to the extent it reflects the judgments of ordinary people, also reflects multiple different theories of persistence – contrary to recent arguments that legal rights depend solely on numerical identity.
What are we? What owns our thoughts and experiences? Are we anything at all? After an introduction, Section 2 assesses a 'no-bearer' theory of experience, and the 'no-self' contention that self-representations are about no real entity, before introducing a positive hypothesis about the objects of our self-representations: the 'animalist' claim that we are biological organisms. Section 3 discusses the classic challenge to animalism that brain transplantation is something we could survive but no animal could survive. This challenge introduces positive alternatives to animalism, as well as animalist responses, including one which questions the assumption that psychology is irrelevant to organism persistence. Section 4 surveys a 'thinking parts' problem and conjoined twinning and commisurotomy, also considered problematic for animalism. The interpretation of these cases revisits questions about bearers of experience, objects of self-representation, and the relation of biology and psychology. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
In this chapter, we first address the question of why groups are so much “better at” terrorism than individuals. Specifically, we argue that, when trying to explain terrorism, it makes more sense to consider people’s social identities than their personal identities, and thus to focus on the group rather than the individual. We present seven pieces of evidence for this idea. Subsequently, we describe studies in which we employ a new paradigm called “Bovenland” to study experimentally the role of multiple and ongoing threats to one’s social identity (in terms of exclusion) in explaining inaction, normative, and (extreme) nonnormative behavior. We conclude by articulating how and when threats to one’s social identity are associated with the need to restore one’s image by displaying violent behavior.
Derek Parfit’s view of ‘personal identity’ raises questions about whether advance decisions refusing life-saving treatment should be honored in cases where a patient loses psychological continuity; it implies that these advance decisions would not be self-determining at all. Part I of this paper argues that this assessment of personal identity undermines the distinction between suicide and homicide. However, rather than accept that an unknown metaphysical ‘further fact’ underpins agential unity, one can accept Parfit’s view but offer a different account of what it implies morally: that the social and legal bases for ascribing a persisting ‘personal identity’ maintain the distinction between homicide and suicide.
This chapter introduces the subjects which will be discussed over the course of the book. The question of personal ontology – “what are we?” – is distinguished from the more commonly discussed question of personal identity over time – “under what conditions is someone at one time identical with something at some other time?” This chapter introduces the main thesis which will animate much of the book, namely that we are unable to choose between substance dualism and the thesis that we are composite physical objects, as the arguments on each side of the issue can be parodied. This chapter also introduces the concept of composition, as well as the thesis of composition as identity, and argues that composition as identity should be rejected. The chapter ends with brief summaries of the remaining chapters.
What are we? Are we, for example, souls, organisms, brains, or something else? In this book, Andrew Brenner argues that there are principled obstacles to our discovering the answer to this fundamental metaphysical question. The main competing accounts of personal ontology hold that we are either souls (or composites of soul and body), or we are composite physical objects of some sort, but, as Brenner shows, arguments for either of these options can be parodied and transformed into their opposites. Brenner also examines arguments for and against the existence of the self, offers a detailed discussion of the metaphysics of several afterlife scenarios - resurrection, reincarnation, and mind uploading -- and considers whether agnosticism with respect to personal ontology should lead us to agnosticism with respect to the possibility of life after death.
Infiltrated consciousness occurs when a subject's sense of self comes to be strongly and negatively shaped by victimizing master narratives. Consider the stay-at-home dad who has internalized a harmful narrative of traditional masculinity and so feels ashamed because he is not the family's bread winner. One way master narratives infiltrate consciousness is through conditioning self-simulation by assigning a hierarchy of values to different social roles. Further, master narratives confine self-simulation by prescribing certain social roles to an individual and prohibiting others. One common suggestion for counteracting infiltrated consciousness is to transform it through membership in new communities with new master narratives. But how does such healing happen? This essay offers a response. Recent psychological research on constructivist theories of memory outlines a naturalistically plausible mechanism for self-simulation. I argue that this mechanism is implicated in transforming infiltrated consciousness. This clarifies features of our psychological architecture that make the alteration of self-concepts possible.
In 2021, the debate about the spaces in which Europe’s Muslim citizens should be permitted to wear religious veils was reanimated by the introduction of new prohibitions introduced in Switzerland and France, and the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in joined cases C-804/18 and C-341/19. This article examines the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights concerning veiling. We argue that veil bans reduce the ability of Muslim women to actualize themselves as citizens by limiting their capacity to develop their identity through autonomous action. As such, we argue, the right ultimately at stake—which should protect rights in respect of veiling—is the right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and judicial and popular conceptions of veiling should be reoriented to accommodate this view. Doing so, we argue, highlights the full range of functions that veiling implicates—including religious but also secular identarian concerns and exposes how a usually expansive right has been curtailed in cases involving veiling.
The present study benefits from social identity theory to argue that employees' organizational identity interacts with their trust propensity to predict affective organizational commitment and creativity. It used random coefficient regression procedures or multilevel modeling through the generalized linear mixed models command to test its hypothesis because the data that were collected in two of the studies were the nested or dependent data. Employing longitudinal data gathered from 153 participants and their 71 direct managers at a public organization in Study 1, the present study revealed that organizational identity had stronger positive influences on organizational commitment and creativity when participants' trust propensity was high. Employing longitudinal data collected from 210 employees of 32 business organizations and from 49 direct supervisors of the employees in Study 2, the present study reassured that trust propensity moderates the relationship between organizational identity and creativity. The present study contributes to the theory that employees' personal identity accentuates the positive relationship between their social identity and workplace outcomes such that the relationship becomes stronger as employees' personal identity increases.
This chapter discusses Heidegger’s concept of authenticity and the extent to which it entails an individualism incompatible with his social ontological holism. I argue that Heidegger’s notion of authenticity does not refer to a process of individualisation in which individuals come to rely mostly or solely on their own abilities. Rather, it amounts to what I call an emphatic individuation in which Dasein ontically comes to understand its own nature. Rather than prescribing a set of beliefs or actions, I argue that authenticity requires Dasein to adopt a set of ontologically transparent second-order attitudes on its own existence. This solves two problems inherent to Heidegger’s conception of the self, namely, its lack of constancy (the capacity of the self to remain itself in changing situations) and autonomy (the capacity to commit to some possibilities rather than others). These problems are solved by the analysis of being-towards-death and conscience, respectively. I then consider what the demand for authenticity entails for Heidegger’s conception of face-to-face relations and his conception of historical communities and how it differs from moral obligations.
This article examines the emerging possibility of “brain-state transitioning,” in which one brain state is prompted through manipulating the dynamics of the active brain. The technique, still in its infancy, is intended to provide the basis for novel treatments for brain-based disorders. Although a detailed literature exists covering topics around brain-machine interfaces, where targets of brain-based activity include artificial limbs, hardware, and software, there is less concentration on the brain itself as a target for instrumental intervention. This article examines some of the science behind brain-state transitioning, before extending beyond current possibilities in order to explore philosophical and ethical questions about how transitions could be seen to impact on assessment of responsibility and personal identity. It concludes with some thoughts on how best to pursue this nascent approach while accounting for the philosophical and ethical issues.
According to conventionalist or conativist views about personal-identity, utterances of personal-identity sentences express propositions that are, in part, made true by the conative attitudes of relevant persons-stages. In this paper I introduce assessor relative conativism: the view that a personal-identity proposition can be true when evaluated at one person-stage's context and false when evaluated at another person-stage's context, because person-stages have different patterns of conative attitudes. I present several reasons to embrace assessor relative conativism over its more familiar realizer relative cousin.
A prominent group of theories in bioethics hold that an individual’s moral status, the totality of moral consideration we owe to that individual, depends very significantly on whether the individual is a person. Only persons have full moral status, including the right not to be killed. Personhood theory has significant implications for how we should ethically and conceptually treat individuals who are not persons or whose personhood is in question. This chapter initially outlines the main elements of personhood theory and discusses the main complications and criticisms of this approach. Because of the size of the literature, the exposition is necessarily selective and not exhaustive. The latter part of the chapter then analyses different possible approaches to personhood across the lifespan and the ethical implications they raise, with a particular focus on the implications for the moral status of the old among us.
The Sickness unto Death presents a startlingly modern view of the self as non-substantialist, emergent, and process-driven. Instead of an immaterial soul or metaphysical essence, Kierkegaard’s self is a state of the human body and mind in “synthesis,” something human beings can become (or fail to become) through relating to themselves in a particular way. But the self is also presented in this work as an essentially eschatological being. While the self may be formed in and through its social context, Anti-Climacus returns again and again to the idea that the self is at heart the subject of an eternal judgment. This has significant implications both for what Kierkegaard takes selves – and by extension each of us – to be, and how we understand the temporality within which beings like us live.
Brian Leftow continues to argue that the metaphysical concept of constitution cannot be used to explicate the doctrine of the Trinity, as I have attempted to do. He also defends his own, distinctive view of the relation of Jesus to the Father. I maintain that he fails on both counts.
The idea that physical death may not mark the end of an individual's existence has long been a source of fascination. It is perhaps unsurprising that we are apt to wonder what it is that happens to us when we die. Is death the end of me and all the experiences that count as mine? Or might I exist, and indeed have experiences, beyond the time of my death? And yet, deep metaphysical puzzles arise at the very suggestion that persons might continue to exist following physical death. Indeed, whether, and how, one can exist post-mortem will depend in no small part on what sorts of things we are and on what it takes for things like us to persist across temporal durations and other changes. These topics and their application to the growing collection of materialist accounts of resurrection are the focus of this Element.