In the essay “An Argument for Animalism” by Eric T. Olson, he concludes that personal identity is psychological continuity. I will disagree with Olson’s ideas about personal identity in the brain-transplant and the thinking-animal argument. The main point of the paper is about animalism. Olson’s argument is that each one of us is numerically identical to a human animal. Olson says that a person could exist who is not numerically identical to any animal, but it’s not the case for you and I. Olson, then presents his ‘Thinking-Animal Argument’ and the alternatives to that. In this paper I will disagree with some of Olson’s ideas about personal identity in the brain-transplant example. Olson begins his essay by defining what animalism is, and
…show more content…
There is a human animal sitting in your chair, 2. The human animal sitting in your chair is thinking, 3. You are the thinking being sitting in your chair, 4. You are the human animal (a thing with biological, not psychological, persistence conditions). He then comes up with three arguments against animalism: 1) there are no human animals, 2) Human animals can’t think, 3) You are not alone. Alternative 1, many people don’t take it seriously. Alternative 2, it’s hard to believe that humans can’t think; and anyone who denies that animals can’t think, has to explain why. But the alternative 3 is the one that is mostly taken more seriously. Now this is the one where there is an over-crowding, in which there are two thinkers and when thinking which one is you. Olson’s conclusion doesn’t commit you to being essentially an …show more content…
In the thinking-animal argument, the premise that we can reject is 2. Olson leads us belief that human animals can’t think, now if you are a dualist and you consider the mind is separate from the human animal, and then you may see the clear distinction. Because that would mean that the mental and the physical (mind or body and brain) are different kinds of thing. But if you believe that you’re mind and body are connected then you might agree with Olson’s arguments. This argument aims to demonstrate how the absurdities derived from supposing animalism claim to be false. It’s plausible to deny that many animals think and perceive and if they do they must be the one’s sitting in your chair. Since you’re sitting in your chair, and you are thinking and perceiving, you can’t be an
There is a human animal sitting in your chair, 2. The human animal sitting in your chair is thinking, 3. You are the thinking being sitting in your chair, 4. You are the human animal (a thing with biological, not psychological, persistence conditions). He then comes up with three arguments against animalism: 1) there are no human animals, 2) Human animals can’t think, 3) You are not alone. Alternative 1, many people don’t take it seriously. Alternative 2, it’s hard to believe that humans can’t think; and anyone who denies that animals can’t think, has to explain why. But the alternative 3 is the one that is mostly taken more seriously. Now this is the one where there is an over-crowding, in which there are two thinkers and when thinking which one is you. Olson’s conclusion doesn’t commit you to being essentially an …show more content…
In the thinking-animal argument, the premise that we can reject is 2. Olson leads us belief that human animals can’t think, now if you are a dualist and you consider the mind is separate from the human animal, and then you may see the clear distinction. Because that would mean that the mental and the physical (mind or body and brain) are different kinds of thing. But if you believe that you’re mind and body are connected then you might agree with Olson’s arguments. This argument aims to demonstrate how the absurdities derived from supposing animalism claim to be false. It’s plausible to deny that many animals think and perceive and if they do they must be the one’s sitting in your chair. Since you’re sitting in your chair, and you are thinking and perceiving, you can’t be an