- This pseudo-Paper is intended as the mechanism to record time spent on the Note 'Constitution View - Objections1' during my Thesis research, as from 2011.
- For the actual time recorded, click on "Paper Statistics" above.
Write-up2 (as at 06/07/2023 00:43:12): Constitution View - Objections
Plug Note3
- Thesis Text:
- The two obvious issues are:-
- The “too many minds” objection (otherwise known as the “thinking animal argument4”), and
- The “fetus problem5”
- Thinking Animals6
- In saying that an Individual7 is a human animal8 and that also that that Individual is a person9 that is ontologically distinct from, and merely constituted by10, the human animal, Eric Olson argues that we have too many thinkers and therefore the constitution view11 is false.
- I don’t like this argument, in that the form would prove too much. I see analogies with various mereological12 arguments:-
→ Peter Unger’s argument that “there are no ordinary things”,
→ The Sorites13 arguments against the existence of material objects with parts, and maybe with
→ Tib/Tibbles14, and
→ Dion/Theon15
- 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 souls16 (again, too many thinkers – if the brain17 thinks, why do we need a soul that thinks as well). However, the degree of ontological18 distinctness between “the self19 and its brain20” is greater than that between the person21 and the human being22 that (maybe temporarily) constitutes23 it. I will reconsider this collection of arguments in due course.
Fetus Problem24
This is the question whether I25 was ever a Fetus. According to the Constitution View26, I was not, as the Fetus had no First Person Perspective27 (FPP), not even a rudimentary one, and since the FPP is constitutive / individuative of me.
But, if I was not the Fetus, where did I28 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 animal29? Was the fetus a proper part of the mother? See "Kingma (Elselijn) - Were You Part of Your Mother?".
So, should I accept the Constitution View30? I think not. I am an animal31, and objections to Animalism32 can be overcome. The whole idea of Constitution33 as conceived of by the CV is very odd, and the CV was invented to provide the hope of resurrection34. I need to justify these assertions, of course!
References
- Relevant Works cited above:
- "Kingma (Elselijn) - Were You Part of Your Mother?", 2019, Annotations, External Link, Read
- Works on this topic that I’ve actually read35, include the following:-
- General:
- "Baker (Lynne Rudder) - Brief Reply to Rosenkrantz's Comments on my 'The Ontological Status of Persons'", 2002, Annotations, External Link, Internal PDF Link
- "Baker (Lynne Rudder) - Christians Should Reject Mind-Body Dualism", 2004, Annotations
- "Baker (Lynne Rudder) - Reply to Zimmerman’s 'Christians Should Affirm Mind-Body Dualism'", 2004, Annotations, External Link, Internal PDF Link
- "Baker (Lynne Rudder) - The Coherence Of the Constitution View of Human Persons", 2000, Write-Up Note36, Internal PDF Link
- "Baker (Lynne Rudder), Etc. - E-Symposium on 'Persons & Bodies: A Constitution View'", 2001, Book
- "Burke (Michael) - Persons and Bodies: How to Avoid the New Dualism", 1997, Internal PDF Link
- "Garrett (Brian) - The Story of I: Some Comments on L.R.Baker 'Persons & Bodies'", 2001, Write-Up Note37, Annotations
- "Kingma (Elselijn) - Were You Part of Your Mother?", 2019, Annotations, External Link
- "Noonan (Harold) - Arguments Against Animalism: Comments on L.R.Baker 'Persons & Bodies'", 2001, Write-Up Note38, Annotations
- "Olson (Eric) - Thinking Animals and the Constitution View", 2001, Write-Up Note39, Annotations, Internal PDF Link
- "Olson (Eric) - Thinking Animals and the Reference of 'I'", 2002, Annotations, Internal PDF Link
- "Olson (Eric) - What Are We? Constitution", 2007, Write-Up Note40, Internal PDF Link
- "Rosenkrantz (Gary) - Reflections on the Ontological Status of Persons", 2002, Internal PDF Link
- "Sider (Ted) - Review of Lynne Rudder Baker, Persons and Bodies", 2002, Annotations, External Link, Internal PDF Link
- "Zimmerman (Dean) - Christians Should Affirm Mind-Body Dualism", 2004, Annotations, Internal PDF Link
- "Zimmerman (Dean) - Reply to Baker's 'Christians Should Reject Mind-Body Dualism'", 2004, Annotations
- A further reading list might start with:-
- General:
- "Baker (Lynne Rudder) - Replies to Zimmerman, Rea & Pereboom", 2002, External Link
- "De Waal (Frans) - The Ape and the Sushi Master: Cultural Reflections of a Primatologist", 2001, Book, Read = 7%, Footnote41
- "Noller (Jorg) - Beyond Animalism and Constitutionalism: The Person as A Form of Life", Undated, Internal PDF Link, Read = 17%
- "Olson (Eric) - Review of Lynne Baker's 'Persons And Bodies'", 2001, Internal PDF Link, Read = 67%
- "Pereboom (Derek) - On Baker's Persons and Bodies", 2002
- "Rea (Michael) - Lynne Baker on Material Constitution", 2002
- "Zimmerman (Dean) - Persons and Bodies: Constitution Without Mereology?", 2002
- For a list of Works that have been considered, but have missed the cut for inclusion in this Section of my Thesis, see the following:-
- Read: No items to list.
- Further Reading: No items to list.
- This is mostly a place-holder42.
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 (06/07/2023 00:43:12).
- Link to Latest Write-Up Note.
Footnote 41:
- Argues against human uniqueness.
- No doubt there are a number of other books of this ilk.
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026