Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A misfortune can be located at the temporal part of an entity most directly affected, even if that part lacks consciousness.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Misfortunes essentially involve badness-for-someone; unconscious stages cannot be subjects of experiential harm or deprivation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Locating misfortune at an unconscious temporal part generates absurdities: the entity doesn't realize the harm during that stage.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Only the temporally extended *person* (not isolated parts) is the proper subject of misfortune and wellbeing assessment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Misfortunes are objective events (damage, loss, harm) that exist independently of consciousness or subjective experience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Temporal parts are the correct ontology: entities are extended through time like they are through space.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
We routinely attribute properties to unconscious temporal stages (e.g., 'my sleeping self was injured by the fall').
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.