The CEU Philosophy Department cordially invites you to a talk (as part of its Departmental
Colloquium series)
by
Milosz Pawlowski (CEU)
on
The Future of A Parfitian Reductionist
Tuesday, 14 Oct 2008, 5.30 PM, Zrinyi 14, Room 412
ABSTRACT
Derek Parfit is the most influential proponent of the view that persons are logical
constructions out of ontologically more basic objects. For Parfit, these are mental
events. Parfit's position is intended to be different from Eliminativism about
persons. On Parfitian Reductionism, persons are genuine, albeit convention- and
thought-dependent, objects. My aim will be to examine an objection to this view, which has
it that if such Reductionism is true, it is a mistake to think that we can anticipate
"our" futures. I will first show how inconsistencies in Parfit's position
are resolved by the account developed by Raymond Martin. On Martin's view, we can
anticipate experiences of people who are not identical to us. Yet I will argue that the
conventionalist component of Parfitian Reductionism
makes it impossible for it to preserve the distinction between genuine and seeming
anticipation. This makes genuine anticipation impossible. Since possibility of
anticipation is an essential component of the concept of a person, it follows that there
are no people if Parfitian Reductionism is true. The view collapses into Eliminativism.
Kriszta Biber
Department Coordinator
Philosophy Department
Tel: 36-1-327-3806
Fax: 36-1-327-3072
Show replies by date
The CEU Philosophy Department cordially invites you to a talk (as part of its Departmental
Colloquium series)
by
Milosz Pawlowski (CEU)
on
The Future of A Parfitian Reductionist
Tuesday, 14 Oct 2008, 5.30 PM, Zrinyi 14, Room 412
ABSTRACT
Derek Parfit is the most influential proponent of the view that persons are logical
constructions out of ontologically more basic objects. For Parfit, these are mental
events. Parfit's position is intended to be different from Eliminativism about
persons. On Parfitian Reductionism, persons are genuine, albeit convention- and
thought-dependent, objects. My aim will be to examine an objection to this view, which has
it that if such Reductionism is true, it is a mistake to think that we can anticipate
"our" futures. I will first show how inconsistencies in Parfit's position
are resolved by the account developed by Raymond Martin. On Martin's view, we can
anticipate experiences of people who are not identical to us. Yet I will argue that the
conventionalist component of Parfitian Reductionism
makes it impossible for it to preserve the distinction between genuine and seeming
anticipation. This makes genuine anticipation impossible. Since possibility of
anticipation is an essential component of the concept of a person, it follows that there
are no people if Parfitian Reductionism is true. The view collapses into Eliminativism.
Kriszta Biber
Department Coordinator
Philosophy Department
Tel: 36-1-327-3806
Fax: 36-1-327-3072