response 8

response 8 - Nina Madison Response #8 In his 'Personal...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Nina Madison Response #8 In his 'Personal Identity', pp. 200-201, Derek Parfit introduces a case in which 'my brain is divides in half and each half is housed in a new body. Both resulting people have my character and apparent memories of my life.' He then speculates about 'what happens to me'. What are the alternatives, and why is each problematic? There are three alternatives which are the possibilities of he doesn’t survive, he survives as one of the two people, or he survives as both. 1. The alternative that he does survive is problematic because people have survived with half of their brain destroyed. Parfit mentions how people in the past have in fact lived without half of their brain, therefore it is a possibility that someone can survive such a procedure. Therefore if this is true, then the statement becomes a double negative. It becomes a question of how could he not survive if one of the halves were transplanted successfully. This brings us to the problem with the second possibility. 2.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/30/2012 for the course PHIL 262 taught by Professor Scottpaterson during the Spring '08 term at USC.

Page1 / 2

response 8 - Nina Madison Response #8 In his 'Personal...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online