Rosenberg Thinking Clearly About Death Notes (Ch. 2 & 6)
Rosenberg Ch 2 -
(2.1)The Having Theory: the relationship between either a person and a soul or a person and a body is some form of “possession” or “ownership” signaled by the word ‘has’. Rosenberg’s argument: The questions regarding a person who dies “What becomes of the person?” and “Where does the corpse come from” cannot be answered coherently by the Having Theory. His argument: No account of the history of a person’s possessions following his death has any consequences regarding the history of the person himself following his death, so the Having theory does not have an answer for question 1. An analogy: a pancreas is something a person has. Suppose when I die my pancreas will be surgically removed and kept healthy and alive. The history of my pancreas will continue after my death. It does not follow that my history will continue after my death. The fate of my pancreas does not equal my fate. Rosenberg argues that knowing what becomes of the soul does not mean we know what becomes of ourselves. The fact that the history of my soul continues after death does not imply that my history does. Thus, the Having theory leaves my fate completely undetermined.
(2.2) Having a Soul - In a Manner of Speaking A person’s “having” a soul is a very different sort of thing from a person “having” a pancreas. A person’s having a soul is not a form of ownership at all - souls and bodies that we are said to “have” are not things or entities but merely nominal objects, illusions of linguistic appearances. (i) He has a muscular body
She has a generous soul Taken at face value, (i) and (ii) appear to state a relationship of having, ownership. The surface grammar is fully analogous to the surface grammar of sentences which do state such a relationship (iii) & (iv): He has an enlarged liver (iv) She has a red pontiac (v) He has a short temper
She has an even disposition Regarding (v) and (vi): There is no temptation to suppose that
(2.1)The Having Theory: the relationship between either a person and a soul or a person and a body is some form of “possession” or “ownership” signaled by the word ‘has’. Rosenberg’s argument: The questions regarding a person who dies “What becomes of the person?” and “Where does the corpse come from” cannot be answered coherently by the Having Theory. His argument: No account of the history of a person’s possessions following his death has any consequences regarding the history of the person himself following his death, so the Having theory does not have an answer for question 1. An analogy: a pancreas is something a person has. Suppose when I die my pancreas will be surgically removed and kept healthy and alive. The history of my pancreas will continue after my death. It does not follow that my history will continue after my death. The fate of my pancreas does not equal my fate. Rosenberg argues that knowing what becomes of the soul does not mean we know what becomes of ourselves. The fact that the history of my soul continues after death does not imply that my history does. Thus, the Having theory leaves my fate completely undetermined.
(2.2) Having a Soul - In a Manner of Speaking A person’s “having” a soul is a very different sort of thing from a person “having” a pancreas. A person’s having a soul is not a form of ownership at all - souls and bodies that we are said to “have” are not things or entities but merely nominal objects, illusions of linguistic appearances. (i) He has a muscular body
She has a generous soul Taken at face value, (i) and (ii) appear to state a relationship of having, ownership. The surface grammar is fully analogous to the surface grammar of sentences which do state such a relationship (iii) & (iv): He has an enlarged liver (iv) She has a red pontiac (v) He has a short temper
She has an even disposition Regarding (v) and (vi): There is no temptation to suppose that