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 Locke's distinction between man and person shows one substance can fall under two ultimate sortals with different persistence conditions at the same time.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If one substance has two ultimate sortals, either one is non-ultimate or substance dualism is true; neither follows from Locke.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Different *criteria* for tracing identity don't entail different ultimate sortals—both may track one underlying modal essence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Calling 'man' and 'person' ultimate sortals requires explaining why we count as one organism, not two fundamentally different kinds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Locke explicitly defines 'man' by biological continuity and 'person' by consciousness/memory, treating them as distinct criteria.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Cases of amnesia or split-brain scenarios show biological identity can diverge from psychological continuity, supporting dual sortals.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Identity conditions must track what matters for moral responsibility; consciousness matters differently than bodily persistence.
?
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.