The view that we are human animals, "animalism", is a very unpopular view. Personally, I am in agreement with this view. I will explain how I understand the claim that we are animals as well as make a case for this unpopular view.
Eric Olson is interested in issues involving what we essentially are. His definition of animalism is that “each of us is numerically identical with an animal. There is a certain human organism, and that organism is you. You and it are one and the same”. According to his view we are not constituted by anything non-physical, even in part. He considers these issues within the cognisance of what conditions it takes for human animals to exist across time. He assumes that we continue to exist through time. For example, …show more content…
If one were to claim that there are no human animals, it is difficult to see how there could be any organisms of other sorts. So denying the first premise amounts to denying that there are any organisms. There are few philosophers who deny the existence of animals. Rightly so, as it does not seem like a credible claim. Anything that would rule out the existence of animals would also rule out most of the things we might be if we are not animals. If there are no animals there are no beings constituted by animals; no temporal parts of animals and no Humean bundles of perceptions either. If there are no animals, it is difficult to see what else we could be. The claim that we are human animals is the most logical answer of what we could be. (Olson, 2003) (Chapman, …show more content…
The Lockean argument would follow like this: in the future, if any being remembers thinking, feeling and acting as me, then that being is me. The future being would not have to be an animal at all. So it is possible for me to exist independently of this human animal (e.g. the one sitting in this chair). So I am not this human animal. I am not in agreement with the Lockean argument. According to John Locke, we persist in virtue of our psychology continuing to exist across time. Therefore, we continue to exist by virtue of having the same psychology as time goes on. Our psychology may change as time goes on, but that does not mean our psychology changes into a numerically different psychology. We continue to exist as we do because we have the same psychology. With regard to humans, we remain the same, presumably in virtue of the fact that relevant parts of our brains stay the same. If our psychology is understood as a physical thing, then presumably that physical thing is a brain, or part of our brains. Many psychological approach theorists argue that the higher thinking parts of our brains, for example the cerebrum, are the relevant things that persist in relation to the things which we are identical. I am not in agreement with this view. I am of the opinion that we exist in virtue of our animal, or biological organisms persisting. Each of us is undeniably a member of the species Homo sapiens, a homo
Eric Olson is interested in issues involving what we essentially are. His definition of animalism is that “each of us is numerically identical with an animal. There is a certain human organism, and that organism is you. You and it are one and the same”. According to his view we are not constituted by anything non-physical, even in part. He considers these issues within the cognisance of what conditions it takes for human animals to exist across time. He assumes that we continue to exist through time. For example, …show more content…
If one were to claim that there are no human animals, it is difficult to see how there could be any organisms of other sorts. So denying the first premise amounts to denying that there are any organisms. There are few philosophers who deny the existence of animals. Rightly so, as it does not seem like a credible claim. Anything that would rule out the existence of animals would also rule out most of the things we might be if we are not animals. If there are no animals there are no beings constituted by animals; no temporal parts of animals and no Humean bundles of perceptions either. If there are no animals, it is difficult to see what else we could be. The claim that we are human animals is the most logical answer of what we could be. (Olson, 2003) (Chapman, …show more content…
The Lockean argument would follow like this: in the future, if any being remembers thinking, feeling and acting as me, then that being is me. The future being would not have to be an animal at all. So it is possible for me to exist independently of this human animal (e.g. the one sitting in this chair). So I am not this human animal. I am not in agreement with the Lockean argument. According to John Locke, we persist in virtue of our psychology continuing to exist across time. Therefore, we continue to exist by virtue of having the same psychology as time goes on. Our psychology may change as time goes on, but that does not mean our psychology changes into a numerically different psychology. We continue to exist as we do because we have the same psychology. With regard to humans, we remain the same, presumably in virtue of the fact that relevant parts of our brains stay the same. If our psychology is understood as a physical thing, then presumably that physical thing is a brain, or part of our brains. Many psychological approach theorists argue that the higher thinking parts of our brains, for example the cerebrum, are the relevant things that persist in relation to the things which we are identical. I am not in agreement with this view. I am of the opinion that we exist in virtue of our animal, or biological organisms persisting. Each of us is undeniably a member of the species Homo sapiens, a homo