Thesis - Chapter 09 (Arguments against the Constitution View)
Todman (Theo)
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsLink to Latest Write-Up Note

Comment:



Write-up2 (as at 14/02/2026 00:41:46): Thesis - Chapter 09 (Arguments against the Constitution View)

Chapter Contents
  1. Abstract3
  2. Methodology4
  3. Introduction5
  4. Note Hierarchy6
  5. Main Text7
  6. Concluding Remarks8
  7. Links to Books / Papers to be Addressed9
  8. Works Read10
  9. Further Reading11
  10. References & Reading List

Abstract
  1. A discussion of the arguments against the Constitution View, focusing on those mustered by the principal animalists, with a critique.
  2. Additionally, I intend here to critique Olson’s “Thinking Animal” Argument12. While this is largely an argument for Animalism13, though I think it unnecessary to establish the case for Animalism, and this aspect is covered in Chapter 614, Olson uses it against the Constitution View, though it ‘works’ – if at all – against any alternative to Animalism.


Research Methodology
  • Follow this Link15 for a generic statement of how I intend to pursue each Chapter.
  • The method is broken down into 16, possibly iterative, stages, some of which have sub-stages.
  • Follow this Link16 for my progress dashboard on these tasks.


Chapter Introduction17
  1. Like the previous Chapter, there is mostly a 1-1-match between this Chapter and a single Note – in this case Constitution View – Objections18. That’s because Olson’s Master Argument – which is both an argument for Animalism and an objection to the Constitution View – has its own Note but appears in Chapter 7.
  2. The Note on Holes & Smiles19 is relevant because it illustrates how a property – like the Cheshire Cat’s smile – cannot exist in the absence of the infrastructural body that makes it possible, nor can they be transferred from one body to another and remain the same property. So, I would argue, a First Person Perspective is the property of a particular human body, and cannot be transplanted from one body to another.


Note Hierarchy
  1. The Constitution View20. Excluded21
  2. Arguments against the Constitution View22
  3. Holes & Smiles23
  4. The Thinking Animal Argument24. Excluded25


Main Text
  1. Arguments against the Constitution View26
    1. The two obvious issues are:-
      1. The “too many minds” objection (otherwise known as the “thinking animal argument27”), and
      2. The “fetus problem28”
    2. Thinking Animals29
      • In saying that an Individual30 is a human animal31 and that also that that Individual is a person32 that is ontologically distinct from, and merely constituted by33, the human animal, Eric Olson argues that we have too many thinkers and therefore the constitution view34 is false.
      • I don’t like this argument, in that the form would prove too much. I see analogies with various mereological35 arguments:-
        → Peter Unger’s argument that “there are no ordinary things”,
        → The Sorites36 arguments against the existence of material objects with parts, and maybe with
        → Tib/Tibbles37, and
        → Dion/Theon38
      • All these arguments seem to have the same form – there are alleged to be too many co-located items, leading to the denial of some seemingly obvious premise.
      • Yet maybe I accept a version of this in disliking immaterial souls39 (again, too many thinkers – if the brain40 thinks, why do we need a soul that thinks as well). However, the degree of ontological41 distinctness between “the self42 and its brain43” is greater than that between the person44 and the human being45 that (maybe temporarily) constitutes46 it. I will reconsider this collection of arguments in due course.
    3. Fetus Problem47
      • This is the question whether I48 was ever a Fetus. According to the Constitution View49, I was not, as the Fetus had no First Person Perspective50 (FPP), not even a rudimentary one, and since the FPP is constitutive / individuative of me.
      • But, if I was not the Fetus, where did I51 come from?
      • I’m not hugely impressed by this argument either. It’s also a problem for Animalism (it is said) – is the early fetus an animal52? Was the fetus a proper part of the mother? See "Kingma (Elselijn) - Were You Part of Your Mother?".
    4. So, should I accept the Constitution View53? I think not. I am an animal54, and objections to Animalism55 can be overcome. The whole idea of Constitution56 as conceived of by the CV is very odd, and the CV was invented to provide the hope of resurrection57. I need to justify these assertions, of course!
  2. Holes & Smiles58
    1. I was unsure whether to title this Note as “Holes” or “Smiles”, so decided on a combination. While only the former is a recognised philosophical topic, the latter is a recognised as a problem for the Constitution View59.
    2. The relevance to my Thesis is somewhat tangential, but the idea is that there are features60 of other things that are – most likely – not separable entities but which still have persistence conditions61. It makes sense to ask whether a particular hole is the same hole as it was a week ago, or a particular smile the same smile as a few seconds ago – smiles “wear thin” if the photographer takes too long. But neither holes nor smiles can exist separately to their host. The Cheshire Cat’s smile is not to be taken at face value.
    3. I see an analogy with this situation and persons62 or First Person Perspectives63. Often, when a non-philosopher doubts whether someone is the same person64 as they had been previously, they are thinking of a radical personality change. A personality65 is like a very complex and enduring smile – a property66 of something else. It cannot exist on its own, disembodied67, or pass from one body68 to another.


Concluding Remarks
  1. Having now discussed the arguments against both Animalism and the Constitution View, we now in our next Chapter69 turn to the question of Thought Experiments in general, and how they bear on this topic in particular.
  2. This is work in progress70.


Links to Books / Papers to be Addressed71
  1. This section attempts to derive the readings lists automatically from those of the underlying Notes, but removing duplicated references. The list is divided into:-
  2. I’ve not been overly careful to segregate the reading-list of this Chapter from that of Chapter 774. I will address the segregation in due course. There will, in any case, be some overlap.
  3. Many aspects of these papers will need to be either ignored or reserved for other chapters.


Works on this topic that I’ve actually read75, include the following:-
  1. Arguments against the Constitution View76
  2. Holes & Smiles82

A further reading list might start with:-
  1. Arguments against the Constitution View88
  2. Holes & Smiles90


In-Page Footnotes

Footnote 2:
  • This is the write-up as it was when this Abstract was last output, with text as at the timestamp indicated (14/02/2026 00:41:46).
  • Link to Latest Write-Up Note.
Footnote 17:
  • The hyperlinks in this Introduction – as in the other Chapter Introductions – are intended to help motivate the various Notes used in the construction of the Chapter.
  • So, a link appears once and once only per Note in the Note Hierarchy below and appears – as far as possible – in the order of the Hierarchy, even if this is not its first mention.
  • Links to other Notes are omitted in the Chapter Introduction but appear passim in the Main Text.
Footnote 21:
  • This Note will be excluded from the Reading List for this Chapter.
  • It is included in the Reading List for Chapter 7.
Footnote 25:
  • This Note will be excluded from the Reading List for this Chapter.
  • It is included in the Reading List for Chapter 6.
Footnote 71:
  • See the section on Research Methodology for what is to be done with these.
Footnote 84: Footnote 86:
  • See Draft Note.
  • Review Comments:–
    → First Half,
    → Second Half.
  • Olson mentions dents rather than holes, but a dent is a hole philosophically-speaking, it seems.
  • Topologically-speaking, a dent is a smile.
Footnote 87:
  • Simmias’s “tuning of the lyre” objection to the separable existence of souls. Thomas mentions the Cheshire Cat.
Footnote 89:
  • Argues against human uniqueness.
  • No doubt there are a number of other books of this ilk.
Footnote 91:
  • Mentions smiles and persons in Section G.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026


© Theo Todman, June 2007 - March 2026. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page