@Emil,
Emil;129736 wrote:Ok, good. Then, do you still disagree with Swartz about what is essential for a person? If I had a complete memory loss and knew nothing of philosophy or science or anything that is central to my personality, would you really agree that I was the same person? [emphasis added] If my mother lost all memories I would probably not think she was the same person as before. Even though she would still be the same human being.
Yes, you were comparing them. Read your own posts if you don't remember.
Whether kennethamy agrees with you or not, I do not accept your claim that your memories are essential to your personality. Presumably, if you had such a memory loss, without anything else being changed about you, and were again exposed to philosophy, you would be interested in it again. How would that make your personality any different?
Also, if it were essential for your personality, then it would surely be redundent for Swartz to say:
[INDENT][INDENT]I remain convinced that memory and personality are the essential {page 390} core of the concept of personal identity.[/INDENT][/INDENT]
Chapter 12 - Persons
(It is the first sentence of the second to last paragraph in section 12.7, which can easily be found simply by using the search function of one's browser for words in the quote. As kennethamy has expressed some doubt about my reports regarding what Swartz has stated, I suggest he particularly does so with the quotes I have given thus far.)
If memory is essential for personality, then he could have said:
I remain convinced that personality is the essential core of the concept of personal identity.
But be that as it may, I remain convinced that memory is not essential for the concept of personal identity. If, for example, my wife lost her memory, I would still regard her as my wife, and would want her to get to know me again. Presumably, she would again come to feel about me similarly to the way she does now, just as I would expect you, Emil, to be interested in philosophy when exposed to it if you lost your memory without any other change in you.
---------- Post added 02-18-2010 at 11:13 PM ----------
Emil;129693 wrote:...
I'm not very convinced by your "clearly wrong"'s, as you consider Graham Priest clearly wrong though you haven't studied his works at all. Same goes for Pyrrho. I have studied some of his works and he is not clearly wrong, though he may be wrong. I don't know. You would have to meet him by the arguments, not just sweep him away as "clearly wrong".
...
But I have read the relevant chapter of his book. Swartz gives no good reason to suppose that having amnesia makes one a different person.
