![]() Moreover, Parfit argued that from a meta-ethical standpoint we had compelling reasons to believe that holding to these moral principles ‘mattered’ in a deep sense, meaning that we should reject the nihilistic belief that nothing, including morality, was of value. Parfit believed he had demonstrated that his ‘triple theory’ was just such a non-subjective set of moral principles. Secondly, Parfit was concerned with ‘what mattered.’ He wanted to demonstrate that there was a non-subjective set of moral principles which human beings were capable of rationally understanding. His philosophical examination of these issues were presented in seminal works such as his 1971 paper “Personal Identity” and his now classic 1984 book Reasons and Persons. Do we have self? If so, what is it? Does the self possess any value? And so on. ![]() Firstly, Parfit was concerned with the perplexing question of the self and personal identity. Parfit’s work divided into two related set of concerns. This article on Parfit’s criticism of the self and personal identity is intended to make a small contribution to that goal. Though his work was not as widely known by the general public as other intellectual luminaries, his brilliant philosophical insights and imagination deserve a wider audience. Few contemporary philosophers have done more to challenge conventional answers to such questions than Derek Parfit, who tragically passed away on January 1, 2017. The recent passing of a very good friend of mine, to whom this article is dedicated, has prompted me to reflect more deeply on certain philosophical questions about who were are and what really matters. ![]() ![]() Dedicated to the Memory of Connor O’Callaghan ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
February 2023
Categories |