Home Anti-Criterialism Does Not Result in an Unacceptable Consequence
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Anti-Criterialism Does Not Result in an Unacceptable Consequence

  • Xinyi Zhan ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: February 1, 2024

Abstract

Anti-criterialists argue that there are no criteria that ensure personal persistence. However, this perspective is criticized for resulting in an unacceptable consequence that undermines our intuitions, daily beliefs, and direct introspective awareness of personal persistence. I defend anti-criterialism by responding to this objection and arguing that none of these aspects are undermined by anti-criterialism. The flawed objection against anti-criterialism reveals the excessive ambition of criterialism in seeking criteria for personal persistence with metaphysical necessity, which goes beyond our abilities and needs. As beings living in the actual world, we are not able to consider what happens to personal persistence in remote possible worlds. Moreover, to judge whether a person persists or not in daily life, we do not need a criterion that ensures personal persistence in all situations. Anti-criterialism acknowledges the complexity and variability of personal persistence and offers a more realistic and practical approach to understanding personal identity.


Correspondiing author: Xinyi Zhan, Department of Philosophy, Peking University, Beijing, China, E-mail:

References

DeRose, K. 1995. “Solving the Skeptical Problem.” The Philosophical Review 104 (1): 1–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/2186011.Search in Google Scholar

Duncan, M. 2014. “A Challenge to Anti-Criterialism.” Erkenntnis 79 (2): 283–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9494-8.Search in Google Scholar

Duncan, M. 2020. “A Renewed Challenge to Anti-Criterialism.” Erkenntnis 85 (1): 165–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0023-7.Search in Google Scholar

Fiocco, M. O. 2021. “There is Nothing to Identity.” Synthese 199 (3–4): 7321–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03117-4.Search in Google Scholar

Ichikawa, Jonathan J., and S. Matthias. 2018. “The Analysis of Knowledge.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2018 ed. Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Philosophy Department, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/knowledge-analysis/ (accessed January 20, 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Langford, S. 2017. “A Defence of Anti-Criterialism.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47: 613–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1282303.Search in Google Scholar

Mackie, D. 1999. “Personal Identity and Dead People.” Philosophical Studies 95: 219–42.10.1023/A:1004239225105Search in Google Scholar

Meier, L. J. 2022. “Can Thought Experiments Solve Problems of Personal Identity?” Synthese 200 (3): 221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03637-7.Search in Google Scholar

Merricks, T. 1998. “There are No Criteria for Identity Over Time.” Nous 32 (1): 106–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.00091.Search in Google Scholar

Nagel, T. 1986. The View from Nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Noonan, H. 2003. Personal Identity, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203428351Search in Google Scholar

Olson, E. 1997. The Human Animal: Personal Identity Without Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Parfit, D. 1971. “Personal Identity.” Philosophical Review 80: 3–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/2184309.Search in Google Scholar

Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Parfit, D. 1995. “The Unimportance of Idenity.” In Identity: Essays Based on Herbert Spencer Lectures Given in the University of Oxford, edited by H. Harris, 13–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198235255.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Parfit, D. 2012. “We are Not Human Beings.” Philosophy 87: 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031819111000520.Search in Google Scholar

Shoemaker, S. 1970. “Persons and Their Pasts.” American Philosophical Quarterly 7: 269–85.Search in Google Scholar

Shoemaker, S. 2012. “Against Simplicity.” In Personal Identity, edited by G. Gasser, and M. Stefan, 123–36. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9781139028486.009Search in Google Scholar

Sosa, E. 1999. “How to Defeat Opposition to Moore.” Noûs 33 (s13): 141–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.33.s13.7.Search in Google Scholar

Strawson, G. 1999. “The Self and the SESMET.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 6 (4): 99–135.Search in Google Scholar

Swinburne, R. 1985. “Personal Identity: The Dualist Theory.” In Personal Identity, edited by S. Shoemaker, and R. Swinburne, 1–66. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Weaver, S., and J. Turri. 2018. “Personal Identity and Persisting as Many.” In Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, edited by Tania Lombrozo, Joshua Knobe, and Shaun Nichols, 213–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198815259.003.0010Search in Google Scholar

Williams, B. 1970. “The Self and the Future.” Philosophical Review 79 (2): 161–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183946.Search in Google Scholar

Zimmerman, D. W. 1998. “Criteria for Identity and the “Identity Mystics”.” Erkenntnis 48 (2–3): 281–301.10.1023/A:1005304508456Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-11-09
Accepted: 2023-12-22
Published Online: 2024-02-01
Published in Print: 2024-04-25

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 23.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/mp-2023-0046/html
Scroll to top button