In his 1971 paper “Personal Identity”, Derek Parfit posits that it is possible and indeed desirable to free important questions from presuppositions about personal identity without losing all that matters. In working out how to do so, Parfit comes to the conclusion that “the question about identity has no importance” (Parfit, 1971, p. 4.2:3). In this essay, I will attempt to show that Parfit’s thesis is a valid one, with positive implications for human behaviour. The first section of the essay will
In Derek Parfit’s writings Reasons and Persons and “Personal Identity,” he discusses his ideas on what would matter most, personal identity or survival, and he claims that it is survival, rather than personal identity that matters. Where Parfit expresses this view, this is where I disagree. I believe that where survival is there must be personal identity. Both should go hand in hand and there is more to personal identity than psychological/bodily continuity. I believe to an extent that Parfit is
In his book, he addresses the questions of “What makes a person at two different times one and the same person? What is necessarily involved in the continued existence of each person over time?” (Parfit 1984:202) These concepts suggest that an audience member is able to become a different person while viewing a show and that this causes the viewer to prefer a certain character over another, or even to change the way they perceive a character in
Derek Parfit, one of the most important defender of Hume, addresses the puzzle of the non-identity problem. Parfit claims that there is no self. This statement argues against the Ego Theory, which claims that beneath experience, a subject or self exists. Ego Theorists claims that the unity of a person’s whole life including life experiences is also known as the Cartesian view, which claims that each person is a “persisting purely mental thing.” Parfit uses the Split-Brain Case, which tells us something
In The Puzzle of Reality: Why does the Universe Exist?, Derek Parfit explains a theory about the creation of the universe. Parfit believes that there are no causal answers to the existence of the universe. He thinks the universe exists between nothing and everything. The first hypothesis that he brings up is the Big Bang theory. He believes that the creation of the universe had to have perfect conditions. Parfit compares the Big Bang theory to winning a lottery, saying that there is a very minute
The question of whether existing can be judged as a benefit or a harm, or if this judgment can even be made, has been addressed in the writings of David Benatar and Derek Parfit. In his paper Why it is Better to Never Have Come into Existence, Benatar progresses the view that it is always a harm to have been brought into existence. Parfit, however, takes a different position on this question, arguing that a person can be benefitted from being brought into existence in his paper Whether Causing Someone
talking about the philosopher that says the exact opposite of that: Derek Parfit. First, Parfit believes that at some future time, I shall either exist or I shall not exist. His second belief is that there some matters that are important to us that involve survival, responsibility, and memory, which we cannot decide unless the question of personal identity is answered. By answering the question, “am I the same person?”, according to Parfit, we can then determine whether or not we survive or are responsible
Parfit, the Reductionist View, and Moral Commitment ABSTRACT: In Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit argues for a Reductionist View of personal identity. According to a Reductionist, persons are nothing over and above the existence of certain mental and/or physical states and their various relations. Given this, Parfit believes that facts about personal identity just consist in more particular facts concerning psychological continuity and/or connectedness, and thus that personal identity can be
Those of us brought to existence are destined to be greater and accomplish greater things. Derek Parfit, a well-known British philosopher, writes an essay where he clearly states, that we can be benefited by being brought into existence, whether one lives a good or bad life, which is something that I firmly believe in. David Benatar, a well-known South African Philosopher, writes an essay that refutes Parfit by stating that everyone is harmed by being brought into
American History X Derek & Danny’s Turning Point Many factors contribute to decisions we make, often life changing decisions, like we see in “American History X” with brothers Danny and Derek. Both are active skinheads in Venice California, under command of Cameron Alexander a Neo-Nazi leader. Derek and Danny were not raised as racist, but when their father was killed by a black gang member, their views changed. Derek’s turning point for the better was during his time in jail. His brother is headed
Derek Jarman’s film Blue I am a cock sucking Straight acting Lesbian man With ball crushing bad manners Laddish nymphomaniac politics Spunky sexist desires Of incestuous inversion and Incorrect terminology I am a Not Gay (Blue, Jarman; 1995: 119). In offering this extract from Derek Jarman’s film Blue, (England, 1993) I have established an expectation that this paper’s concern is with the sexual body of East End boot stomping, ball crushing queens. However, whilst this sequence
world. Edgar Rice Burroughs’ creation has caught the eye of entertainment in a major way. While movies of Tarzan have come and gone, a unique 1981 version of Tarzan the Ape Man stuck out. This controversial film uses the book from Jane Porter’s (Bo Derek, who is also the producer) point of view. It is a sexy film, where fantasies are fulfilled and dreams come true. The motion picture primarily focuses on Jane’s take of her relationship with Tarzan (Miles O’Keeffe). This modern version of Burroughs’
different either in color, race, and/or heritage; however, there are those few that hold bigoted views towards people who are different than they are. The movie American History X by Tony Kaye displays an example of people who hold bigoted views. Derek, a Neo-Nazi leader, must contend with his actions relating to his past racist views and actions. This powerful movie explores its characters thoroughly and gives reasons why people become so callous and turn towards a racist group. It also exposes
an ingredient common in many stories. Odysseus and Derek are challenged with deadly obstacles and they overcome these difficulties with the help of a mentor. A guide saves both characters and assists them in their return home. Odysseus and Derek need the support and help of a trusted friend who will guide them through their dramatic adventure. Bob Sweeny, a trusted and loyal friend to Derek helped him develop into a well-rounded person. After Derek Vinyard’s father died, he fell into a self-destructive
Ambiguities Answered in Derek Jacobi's Richard II The plain text of a script does not live and breathe as a visual performance must. Both director and actors have to make choices in a production, to interpret and make clear the plot and purpose of the play. The Derek Jacobi Richard II uses the capabilities of film to remove many of the ambiguities that plague interpretation of that text. In doing so, it creates a passionate yet ineffective King Richard who, between his own insecurity and Northumberland's
sensed a bit of hesitation as he proceeded to read a letter as clearly as possible. The letter explained that Derek Grillos, a sophomore at our school and a good friend of mine, had died the night before. At first, my mind failed to register his name. I sat wondering who Derek Grillos was. As everyone questioned Mr. Schelle to find out who Derek was, I sat quiet. Finally, the fact that Derek, my "soccer buddy", had died hit me and hit me hard. I could feel my eyes darting back and forth in confusion
to others. Derek Vinyard, played by Edward Norton, starts to adopt this racist mindset that all races other than white are the downfall of society in a flashback scene where he is speaking with his father about school and his father tells him not to listen to the “nigger bullshit” of his black Social Studies teacher, Dr. Bob Sweeney played by Avery Brooks. Derek’s obvious interest in Dr. Sweeney’s lessons fades almost immediately upon hearing these words from his father and Derek begins to agree
Omeros and St Lucia Derek Walcott’s Omeros is an epic story which fits well into the classical tradition. Its numerous echoes of Homeric writing combined with the use of characters’ names from Homer’s stories are clear evidence to the fact that there is a major parallel to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. There is no debate in this obvious fact. Omeros and Derek Walcott’s writing, however, are much more than a mere reproduction of classical Greek and Roman themes. Arguing
Healing into Wholeness: Individuals Transformed into a Collective Heroic Being in Derek Walcott's Omeros "No man is an Island, entire of himself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the Main." Individual heroic deeds and characteristics are the seeds upon which a culture's values are based and these define a culture while also defining each individual's identity. Ancient and modern epics define heroic behavior through mostly male heroic figures, but female characters share an equally
Achille’s Completion, and the Narrator’s Inspiration “Time is the metre, memory the only plot” (129) Derek Walcott forced the literary world to disagree with him when he denied that Omeros was an epic. Some critics suggest that, like his narrator, Walcott is not sure where his work belongs. Others suggest that Walcott denies its obvious genre in order to avoid being categorized. Regardless, Derek Walcott repeatedly says that the purpose of his writing is to wrestle with the duality within himself