Here is an inconsistent set of propositions:
1. I am essentially human.
2. Humans are animals essentially.
3. Animals are essentially material.
4. I can exist immaterially with no material parts.
One could deny 1. Perhaps to be a human just is to be a (rational) animal. I can survive death and exist immaterially, but since animals are essentially material I would not be an animal and thus not a human.
One could deny 2. Perhaps I am essentially a human, but one can exist with no material parts and still be a human, since animality is merely a stage in a human life. Or perhaps I'm never an animal.
One could deny 3. Perhaps I am essentially a human and humans are essentially animals. However since I can survive the death of my body, an animal (me) can exist with no material parts.
One could deny 4: Perhaps I am essentially material and cannot exist with no material parts.
My inclination is to deny 2 or 3, leaning towards a denial of 3. It could be that all humans must begin to exist having a material part but can exist immaterially. But it could be true that humans are essentially immaterial, in which case one should reject 2.
Unlike my ancient predecessor, this Tullius hasn't had his hands chopped off. With hands attached I offer my thoughts on philosophy, religion, politics, and whatever else I find worth mentioning. I'm conservative religiously and politically (with libertarian leanings). I value reason and freedom but also traditions and "Oldthink." I relish being on the wrong side of history when history is wrong--part of a philosopher's job is to be unpopular. (Views given here may not represent my employers')
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment