Vague Personal Identity - Essay Example

 Vague Personal Identity Sorites paradox is little by little arguments which come about because of the indeterminacy in the context of the limits that involves predicates applications (Parfit 23). The whole process ends up with the challenge of the paradox where in the real world seems to becoming contentious and this may lead to a less accurate conclusion (Noonan 15). The aspect and the overall phenomenon of sorites paradox have been referred as vagueness as described initially together with the indeterminacy in which along dimension vagueness reveals itself (Garrett 12). The reasoning in the derivative sense is all susceptible to paradoxical sorites comprising of the verbs, adverbs and adjectives. Sorities arguments in the paradoxical form canot be confused with the sorites argument referred to as syllogism, the distinction of syllogism and the sorites paradoxes both having the nature of chain arguments is that syllogism do never need o be paradoxical in nature and that both of the two approaches never come into consistency (Parfit 26). Parfit makes use of sorites-based arguments through which he challenges and undermines the aspect of intuition regarding the nature of personal identity which is the determining factor in all the possible solutions. The vagueness of relying on the sorites reasoning has been provided concisely by Derek Parfit, he provides that sorites paradox should not be left behind for individuals in the domain of logicians because they may take advantage of the sorites based thinking for their own benefit (Garrett 14). Derek parfit opposes the perception and the belief that personal identity can automatically be determined by the physical continuity or psychological continuity as well as the combination of the two and he tries to provide the prove that it is a diachronic personal identity also referred to as psychologically-based survival (Katz 123). It is from this lie of belief and perception that Parfit integrate and comes out with his sorites reasoning ending up coming with three key thought-experiments in which it undermines personal identity (Noonan 24). These thought-experiments include psychological continuity, physical continuity, and combination of the two in addition there is physical spectrum, combined spectrum and psychological spectrum (Katz 134). Although the three thought-experiments tend to raise some difficulties, the scope and the nature of sorites argument establishes itself clearly when it comes to the thought experiment of physical spectrum where Parfit base his evidence in the argument (Noonan 35). Parfiti argues on the same spectrum cases in which he provides evidence showing that personal identity is vague and his argument can be considered to be convincing, In consistence with the sorites argument on the spectrum cases, the sorites paradox bases its discussions in the logic and the philosophical view of vagueness (Parfit 34). The reasons why Parfit arguments is convincing is because of the following identifies reasons (Garrett 22). Personal identity vagueness Parfit provides that there are two key approaches on the personal identity metaphysics to vagueness. The first one is the ontological vagueness where in relation to the personal identity involves the vagueness of the individuals independent mind, the surrounding world and the discourse independent mind. From this point of view Parfit shows that there are vague objects and properties that are genuine real and in existence. In addition Parfit subscribes to the other approach which is non-ontological which provides that personal identity vagueness entirely depend on the language and the thought content. In this approach Parfit suggest that vagueness is fully semantic affair and phenomena characterized with lots of ambiguity as well as the semantic indeterminacy and this leads to a no consensus on the metaphysical issues in regard to the personal identity (Berglund 105). Parfiti finally consider the non-ontological point of view on personal development being most popular. Parfit from this point of argument shows that of one does not adopt the non-ontological perception combining with other alternatives to give a two standard logic this leads into a significant effect on the truth of the individual or the person in question (Parfit 48). The effect on the personal identity truth which is the vague discourse gets to be taken as an indirect correspondence between the vague thought-content and the reality non-vague and this is not consistent with the direct language world correspondence and the given example is the combination of denial ontological vagueness and the supervaluationism (Garrett 29). By this evidence on the effect on the personal identity in regard to the truth Parfit proves that instead of a person construing the truth directly, which can be achieved by appealing to a single interpretation which is the intent that provides vague objects refereeing to singular terms by which vague extensions and properties begins to predicate (Katz 145). The existence of the vagueness in the personal identity affects indirectly the truth simplicity because the truth is permissible in as the aspects of a personal identity in regard to all interpretations (Noonan 58). The language world which is a major aspect of the personal identity becomes indirect because the provided truth which has been altered by the existence of vagueness is not founded in a direct straightforward conjunction between the set vocabulary and the actual genuine objects and properties (Berglund 133). Parfit argues that, even though supervaluationism gives an indirect correspondence notion possible implementation, the major difference between the direct and indirect correspondence can be designed generically. In general the personal identity approaches on vagueness that accommodate some options to the standard two value logic, embrace ontological vagueness and that address the non negative statements by using the existing vague language as truth according to Parfit effectively provides personal identity truth as an indirect correspondence (Garrett 33). This also translates into indirect correspondence being naturally understood as semantically right therefore from this point of view vague statements made are usually formulated to become true under the semantic styles which are operating. The notable factor is that it does not have any ontological commitment to any of the vague object or property (Noonan 66). Parfit in his arguments proposes his own classification of personal identities where he gives a clear distinction between qualitative and numerical identity. The basis of qualitative identity is attributed by the spatial location and the historical characteristic; this has similar attributes with the weak identity. Although in his argument he does not provide a clear of what it comprises numerical identity the distinction he provided gives a clear sense o the perception of the personal identity (Berglund 144). The vagueness of the personal identity is evident where Parfit gives the definition of the psychological connectedness and the physical continuity which can be simplified to be a qualitative identity. The question on the issue of personal identity involves the identification of suitable attributes in which the identity in question is maintained, the issue of vagueness comes along when the properties and the objects of maintenance is vague (Garrett 35). This attribute will assume that the vagueness of an identity is determined by the unique set attributes in which they are founded and based on. Another reason for the argument for the existence of vagueness on the personal identity by Parfit is the distinction between Reductionist and Non-reductionist views on the personal identity where he points out two major specializations the Cartesian Pure Ego and Further fact view (Katz 160). From the two distinctions it is apparent that there are no substantial evidence on the accurateness of the two views on the personal identity, notable is the little existing evidence on the underlying facts hence they are all regarded as mere intellectual objects and properties which cannot be classified as realist (Parfit 64). Therefore it is true that Parfit argue that the abstract property of an identity is redundant in the case where the identity is not defined based on the property as well as the object itself. In regard to the further fact the properties must be proven in the context of the personal identity (Noonan 65). In the case of Cartesian Ego the identity it is considered to be a reducing problem where in relation to that of the identity ego where both cases do not provide a specific and satisfactory answer in regard to the personal identity hence considered to be vague. The common variations in the Reductionist view as presented by Parfit is the personal identity either identified with the psychological connectedness and the physical continuity in which both of the indicate the informal continuity in which shows a clear evidence that both of the two criteria does not have a substantial basis hence termed to be vague as the focus is mainly laid on both the mental and physical continuity. In the Reasons and Persons Parfit further provide the evidence of the vagueness in the context of personal identity. In this case Parfit argues against the physical continuity basing on teletransportation on the persons identity and the result is that there are no valid reasons that can prove that the physical continuity do not provide sufficient facts and evidence to validate the relation contributing to such person identity considered to be vague (Garrett 50). Parfit refer to the continuity principle basing on the abstract entities and the vague because the accurate way of viewing the identity of a person is suppose to be based on the underlying issue of the personal identity meaning to consider a persons history beginning from birth up to death and this should be viewed as a dynamic process as opposed to the static entities (Berglund 165). The logic of temporal continuity considered to being an important aspect of personal identity is vague since this concept is not sufficient to prove personal identity therefore it is necessary to back up with a realistic view. The concept of personal identity in relation to the strict identity of an individual must be consistent with the common traditional approach in regard to the personal identity and in this case the issue of vagueness comes along when a degree of modality is not providing (Noonan 76). Parfit also provide that the over-deterministic approach is usually reconciled with the concept of possibilities specifically with those which are different from ones possibility and this abstraction is also a convincing factor in regard to the vagueness of personal identity and the concept of attribute. Personal identities are characterized with contradicting objects and properties which are mainly provided by one actual while the others are just mere possibilities. This approach provides the evidence on the vagueness whereby instead of dismissing the possibilities and remaining with the real properties and objects attributing to a more metaphysical. Although it addresses the issue of personal identity and the various interpretations there is a lot of vagueness that are related with this approach (Berglund 188). Parfit explore the persons and individual intuitions in regard to identity and he argues that there is no specific and adequate procedure of personal identity and that only persons do exists in form of components and from this the reality can only be explained impersonally (Katz 105). The remedy that he proposes in his argument is that emphasis should not be laid more on the personal identity but what matters are the continuity and the psychological connectedness in an individual (Noonan 95). In conclusion vagueness is an important aspect of personal identity which provide a logical criteria in which properties and objects making up the personal identity are connected together taking into account both the real and the abstract properties and objects. In the formal description of the vagueness in the personal identity it is important to note that the key determining factors should provide the identity and the nature of persons in the context of temporal integrity and suitable time. Reference Berglund, Stefan. Human and personal identity. Lund: Lund University Press, 2005. Garrett, Brian. Personal Identity and Self-Consciousness. New York: Routledge, 2001. Katz, Leo. Why the Law Is So Perverse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Noonan, Harold W. Personal Identity. New York: Routledge, 2003. Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. . Read More