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 The Cartesian conception of the self — according to which 'I' picks out something distinct from the physical body — is untenable.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.One can ascribe experiences to oneself only if one is prepared to ascribe experiences to others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A subject can meet this requirement only if the subject is able to pick out other subjects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.One cannot pick out non-spatial subjects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's bundle theory demonstrates that introspection never reveals a persisting Cartesian ego — only successive perceptions bound by memory and causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the 'I' referred to a non-physical substance, personal identity through bodily change would require an unverifiable metaphysical anchor with no empirical content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Parfit's reductionism shows that psychological continuity grounded in physical processes fully accounts for what matters in survival, making a Cartesian self explanatorily redundant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's private language argument entails that a self constituted entirely apart from public, embodied practice could not sustain the rule-following necessary for self-ascription.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'I' picked out a non-physical substance, its reference could never be fixed through ostension or description, rendering the term semantically incoherent by causal theories of reference.
      ?

      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.