Parfit’s equivalent of “there’s no such thing as tables or chairs” is “there’s no such thing as France”. In other words, it’s a label we give to a collection of people, but France doesn’t technically exist other than as those people themselves.
It’s one of the points I disagreed with him on (his line between “exists” and “not exists” seems arbitrary, like he is forcing a particular layer of abstraction), and it somewhat undermined his bigger argument about the nature of the self in Reasons and Persons.
In some ways, France is more real than people comprising it. In almost every way, a chair is more real than particles or fields that it can be modeled as.
Comments
Parfit’s equivalent of “there’s no such thing as tables or chairs” is “there’s no such thing as France”. In other words, it’s a label we give to a collection of people, but France doesn’t technically exist other than as those people themselves.
It’s one of the points I disagreed with him on (his line between “exists” and “not exists” seems arbitrary, like he is forcing a particular layer of abstraction), and it somewhat undermined his bigger argument about the nature of the self in Reasons and Persons.
In some ways, France is more real than people comprising it. In almost every way, a chair is more real than particles or fields that it can be modeled as.