Inspired by an argument by Peter Unger:
Suppose that I exist. Then,
1. If I exist, then I am an animal.
2. If I am an animal, I am composed of a finite number of cells.
3. So if I exist, then I am composed of a finite number of cells.
4. For any cell of mine one might remove (which is not replaced by another cell), I will not cease to be me (that is, my identity is not so tenuous as to rely on being composed by any particular cell).
5. But then if 4 is true, then if you remove each cell, then I would not cease to be me.
6. If 5, then I would not cease to be.
7. Thus, if all of my cells were removed, I would not cease to be.
8. HOWEVER, if one removed every cell composing me, then the animal which I am (according to 1) will cease to be (at some point in the cell removal process the animal will die).
9. But then we have a contradiction: If one were to remove all of my cells I would not cease to be (from 7) and I would cease to be (from 8, 1).
10. Thus what was supposed is false.
11. Thus, I do not exist.
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')
Showing posts with label personal identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label personal identity. Show all posts
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)