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.
![Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwDG4xhsMn9o9J6nFVbJuaWEgUYVbxr7B9gbOXGZ3gwOu55lJg3q0Ev-z3MhLy29603_fkvvngkYmsTvRd4BATcVzZvVOhgkPSy-GIAuaFE0sCVBc_zcTW_d2mKKeCWhMxsZhAPyqXzymO/s1600/cicero-right-1024x603.jpg)
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