RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
March 19, 2013 at 8:39 am
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2013 at 8:41 am by Mystic.)
I just wanted to make a remark on my original argument. I'm not arguing you cannot philosophically rationalize or justify perpetual identity (although I believe from what I've read over the subject that you can't), it's that most of humanity from the past till now, would not know on that basis, but rather can only know in properly basic manner.
Also, I said I cannot prove that most of humanity knows it, it's another properly basic faith I have about humanity through my own experience.
In that sense, I haven't proven the conclusion. But as far as the boat thing goes, I see it irrelevant to perpetual identity, because from my perspective even if you did 180 degrees change in personality, you are still that same person from the past. And I stated if it was similarity of construct that makes us same identity, then we would be same identity with other humans with similar construct. Therefore I feel the boat paradox is irrelevant.
This doesn't make the argument weak, because a lot of people may agree on both premises and feel they know them or have faith in them.
Also, I said I cannot prove that most of humanity knows it, it's another properly basic faith I have about humanity through my own experience.
In that sense, I haven't proven the conclusion. But as far as the boat thing goes, I see it irrelevant to perpetual identity, because from my perspective even if you did 180 degrees change in personality, you are still that same person from the past. And I stated if it was similarity of construct that makes us same identity, then we would be same identity with other humans with similar construct. Therefore I feel the boat paradox is irrelevant.
This doesn't make the argument weak, because a lot of people may agree on both premises and feel they know them or have faith in them.
