Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that On reductionism, there is no principled barrier preventing earlier psychological chains from constituting the same person, contra Kaufman's modal claim.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Psychological chain overlap across persons (memory-sharing, trait inheritance) shows reductionist criteria admit unwanted identities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even reductionists must distinguish actual psychological constitution from mere continuity to avoid counterintuitive collapsing of persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Temporal direction and causal-historical context matter for identity even on reductionism, providing principled barriers Kaufman needs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Reductionism denies that personal identity requires metaphysically primitive facts beyond physical/psychological continuity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If identity consists only in overlapping psychological chains, earlier chains can qualify if they share sufficient continuity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kaufman's modal barrier assumes non-reductive facts that reductionism rejects, so reductionists have no grounds to accept it.
      ?

      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.