In defence of the importance of substance ontology for personal identity and the self/person
This thesis attempts to show the advantage of substance ontology in providing us the most preferable framework, both on methodological as well as philosophical grounds, to have a better grip on the diachronic problem of personal identity. In this case, substance ontology plays multi-faceted roles in terms of allowing us for example, to make sense of the persistence of persons over time, intrinsic changes persons undergo while maintaining their identity over time, etc. However, substance ontology has not been taken seriously by the majority of philosophers. This is because there is a deep seated but mistaken assumption among contemporary analytic philosophers that given the advances in modern science, substance ontology is irrelevant. It is also not uncommon to see philosophers questionably appealing to an extremely controversial Lockeâs theory of substratum (i.e., âsomething we know not whatâ) to justify their rejection of any notion that goes by the name substance. However, with close examination, at the heart of such a rejection of substance ontology lies the naturalistic ontology, according to which everything in the universe has to be explained in purely physical terms as dictated by the physical
Guta, Mihretu Petros
In defence of the importance of substance ontology for personal identity and the self/person. This thesis attempts to show the advantage of substance ontology in providing us the most preferable framework, both on methodological as well as philosophical grounds, to have a better grip on the diachronic problem of personal identity. In this case, substance ontology plays multi-faceted roles in terms of allowing us for example, to make sense of the persistence of persons over time, intrinsic changes persons undergo while maintaining their identity over time, etc. However, substance ontology has not been taken seriously by the majority of philosophers. This is because there is a deep seated but mistaken assumption among contemporary analytic philosophers that given the advances in modern science, substance ontology is irrelevant. It is also not uncommon to see philosophers questionably appealing to an extremely controversial Lockeâs theory of substratum (i.e., âsomething we know not whatâ) to justify their rejection of any notion that goes by the name substance. However, with close examination, at the heart of such a rejection of substance ontology lies the naturalistic ontology, according to which everything in the universe has to be explained in purely physical terms as dictated by the physical
defence importance substance ontology personal_identity self person attempt_show advantage substance ontology provide preferable framework methodological well philosophical ground good grip diachronic problem personal_identity case substance ontology play multi_faceted role term allow example make_sense persistence person time intrinsic change person undergo maintain identity time etc however substance ontology take_seriously majority philosopher deep seat mistaken assumption among contemporary_analytic philosopher give advance modern_science substance ontology irrelevant also uncommon see philosopher appeal extremely controversial locke theory substratum something know justify rejection notion name substance however close_examination heart rejection substance ontology lie naturalistic ontology accord everything universe explain purely physical term dictate physical