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
    The person in a later life and the person in an earlier l... — Carmelics
    Home/Afterlife & Death
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The person in a later life and the person in an earlier life do not strictly exist as ultimate entities.

    Afterlife & DeathPersonal Identity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Any two existing things must be either identical or distinct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Buddha asserts the earlier and later person are neither the same nor different.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If two persons are neither identical nor distinct, they cannot both strictly exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strict identity (Leibniz's Law) applies to abstract objects and logical constants, but persons may be vague objects that admit of borderline cases without thereby being non-existent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Derek Parfit's reductionism holds that persons exist as real but non-fundamental entities constituted by physical and mental events, making the dichotomy between 'strict existence' and 'non-existence' a false one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A continuant can be a genuine constituent of reality under a sortal concept without satisfying the classical criteria for being an ultimate, simple, or substance-like entity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument assumes the Law of the Excluded Middle applies to personal identity claims, but intuitionist and paraconsistent logics deny this assumption for vague or process-based domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Vasubandhu's Abhidharma tradition, a Buddhist competitor to the Madhyamaka reading, holds that dharmas—the momentary constituents of persons—do strictly exist as ultimate entities, grounding conventional truths about persons in real causal streams.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the causal-continuity relation between earlier and later person-stages is itself an ultimate fact, then persons exist at least derivatively as real patterns, contra the claim that they fail to exist at all as ultimate entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Afterlife & DeathPersonal Identity

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    A continuant can be a genuine constituent of reality under a sortal concept with...Any two existing things must be either identical or distinct.Derek Parfit's reductionism holds that persons exist as real but non-fundamental...If the causal-continuity relation between earlier and later person-stages is its...
    +5 moreShow less
    If two persons are neither identical nor distinct, they cannot both strictly exi...Strict identity (Leibniz's Law) applies to abstract objects and logical constant...The Buddha asserts the earlier and later person are neither the same nor differe...The argument assumes the Law of the Excluded Middle applies to personal identity...Vasubandhu's Abhidharma tradition, a Buddhist competitor to the Madhyamaka readi...

    Similar

    The Buddha asserts that the earlier and later person are neither the s...81%The Buddha asserts the earlier and later person are neither the same n...81%It is conventionally true that persons exist as enduring entities.79%It is metaphysically impossible for a person to have come into existen...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: buddha
    View source passageHide passage
    This excursus into what the Buddha meant by karma may help us see how his middle path strategy could be used to reply to the objection to non-self from rebirth. That objection was that the reward and punishment generated by karma across lives could never be deserved in the absence of a transmigrating self. The middle path strategy generally involves locating and rejecting an assumption shared by a pair of extreme views. In this case the views will be (1) that the person in the later life deserve
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit