Hello /lit/, I've been trying to study up on philosophy, and have been reading this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Personal Identity (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/) and have found myself totally lost. What the fuck "The Ontology of Temporal Parts"? Most of the article seems like total jargon and nonsense without a single helpful or even any conclusion, it just ends on: You "could" be a fourth dimensional superbeing amalgamating various paradoxical transient states (?). Also, brute-physicality seems like reductionist nonsense designed to avoid the trickier insinuations of Locke's mental criterion. Furthermore, can someone explain the "Too-Many-Thinkers" problem? I understand why psych-con eliminates brute-physicality as having anything to do with personal identity given the brain vat thought experiment, but why would we then assume there's a separate human organism as well as your own identity, and that creates the risk of fission?
By God /lit/, I'm so fucking confused. Is this just a bunk article/subject. What philosophers will clear my head? I liked Nietzche's views that "being is becoming" - seems to avoid a lot of the thornier issues, especially if you taking the tumblr view that personal identity is anything I fucking say it is, because it's my own label. Thoughts on personal identity? It seems like an under-discussed subject here.
>>7397379Please, please, I beg you do not send me to that shithole which is /his/; this is for a really important interview
>>7397379
>Thoughts on personal identity?
it's a pointless subject to consider
>>7397390
Would you have any justifications behind that? I'm of mind to agree, but just so exhausted from wasting my time on a retarded pseduo-philosophical article that I really can't verbalize it.
Any good Budhist literature on the subject?
>>7397385
We can be gracious anon, but if nihilism, christposting, /pol/ or a combination of all 3 get in your thread.
It will be reported.and let's be honest they will soon filter in
>>7397445
I don't mind the christposters if they want to talk to me about Kierkergaard. I've been a /lit/ regular for a while, I love this board to pieces - it's my first experience with a slow blue board and it's wonderful. Nihilism is a great subject as a jumping board to other philosophies, it really should form the an axiom and not a conclusion if you want to get anywhere worthwhile.
/pol/ is terrible. There's a fantastic article on it right now: http://nymag.com/following/2015/11/inside-pol-4chans-racist-heart.html
/his/ has rapidly become a steaming pile of shit; physically upsets me but at least I assume we lost absolutely no valuable posters.
>>7397472
>t's my first experience with a slow blue board
lel
/lit/'s traffic has significantly increased since the start of the year(has been on the rise for a while).
If you look in the catalog you see a bunch of offtopic threads, which are mostly made by /pol/ and other crossboarders, who see the slow board as a breeding ground for them to revel their shitposting and make it stick for days before a mod gets around to it.
What these idiots don't understand, if that if they keep referring their /pol/ friends to /lit/ and increase the traffic even further, we will get our own mod. If they want to be /pol/lies outside /pol/ and /b/, they will just get banned.
>>7397499
nice conspiracy theory did you think of it while sucking penises
>>7397379
get some nice introductory book on metaphysics
riddles of existence by conee and sider is pretty good
>>7397499
And sharply declined after /his/ was introduced.
>>7397511
/pol/ is terrified of this place thanks to /his/; the butthurt they received from a few /lit/ anons calling out their shit, and then having around fifteen posters from other boards all agreeing that they were said retards (/k/ especially) before some buttblasted /pol/ neo-nazi calls EVERYONE in the thread "dumb redditors" was golden, and a pretty regular site when they tried to "colonize" the board.
>>7397534
you should really stop assuming board populations are homogeneous
i've been on /int/ /lit/ and /new/ or /pol/ for years and years and consider /lit/ my main board and i'm pretty racist
it's not as simple as "/pol/ coming here and getting btfo by /k/," people use multiple boards bro
>>7397540
>openly and proudly racist
Get a load of this cunt
I hope a female member of your family marries outside your "race" and you get a mixed babby in the form of nephew, niece, brother, sister, or cousin.
>>7397540
Racism is one of the most illogical things I can think of. Even if race was linked to behaviour, it would be totally unfair to assume each individual would act like that on a case by case basis. It's much better and easier to disregard superficial judgements and treat people meritocratically.
>>7397678
>Racism is one of the most illogical things I can think of. Even if race was linked to behaviour, it would be totally unfair to assume each individual would act like that on a case by case basis. It's much better and easier to disregard superficial judgements and treat people meritocratically.
You're completely right, but 'racism' is just holding an opinion that at all deviates from progressive orthodoxy. It's a hard pass-fail definition, it isn't necessarily morally charged in any lofty sense.
I'm not that anon, but I'm a racist-fag because I hierarchically judge other cultures and societies. I also believe utility and competence vary (in average) between ethnic groups, with the causality of the matter being totally besides the point.
If preferentialists are bigoted, then I'm a proud and open bigot.
>>7397678
don't engage them like they have anything worth responding. it feeds the need for validation that fuels their crossboard shitposting.
>>7397402
The fact that you actually think a recourse to Buddhist literature will clarify the problem for you leads me to believe you're functionally retarded.
Anyway, you would understand the significance of the problem if you were naturally inclined towards ontology. Evidently you aren't so there's no point explaining it to you
>>7397762
I'm just interested in a variety of views, I've never read up on Buddhism seriously but as I understand a lot of it talks explicitly about the illusary nature of ego, which seems like a good angle if I'm disagreeing with a variety of definitions for personal identity.
Good to know you've got your head so far up your ass you won't even exchange knowledge on a literature board though.
>>7397805
It's less about the ego and the self as it is about the actual metaphysics of change and time and the status of objects that undergo these processes. Honestly, your best bet is starting with Parmenides.
>>7397814
Thanks anon, I'll see if I can dig up some e-books and do a bit of superficial research before bed.
My favorite writers on this topic are Derek Parfit, Ted Sider, and Trenton Merricks. Check them out.
I also think Immortality (ed. Paul Edwards) is a good intro to personal identity. It's pretty easy reading but has most of the important foundational works (Locke, Hume, Reid, etc.) that you need to read contemporary stuff.
>>7397379
I know Sartre gets a lot of shit, but would Being and Nothingess be worthwhile looking into as well?
I've read all the man's plays, and am familiar with his bullshitty, but pretty interesting, philosophy.
