Hylomorphism and Persons in Odd Situations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2025.018Słowa kluczowe
hylomorphism, animalism, zygote, twinning, transplant, remnant personsAbstrakt
Hylomorphism provides an explanation of material composition: the material parts, the Xs, will compose a whole, a Y, belonging to a given natural kind, when those parts are characterized by a substantial form. While there are a number of those who hold that each human person is identical with a human animal – ‘animalists’ – most of these are not hylomorphists. One could worry that hylomorphism contributes little unique to debates about personal identity, collapsing into either a form of property dualism or substance dualism. What I aim to do is apply a robust and classical hylomorphic account of persons (derived from Thomas Aquinas) to two contemporary problems, illustrating the way in which hylomorphic metaphysics can offer elegant solutions to tricky situations posed against animalists. Specifically, I will propose that hylomorphic animalism can help provide principled resolutions to worries that seem to undermine animalist intuitions which are raised by ‘brain transplant’ or ‘remnant person’ scenarios. Hylomorphism can capture the advantages of ‘hybrid’ animalist responses without the cost of denying a singular, biological criterion of personal identity. Further, hylomorphism provides a distinctive upshot for Christian theologians and the moral positions that they want to affirm by rendering morally anodyne apparent epistemic difficulties in identifying personal identity over time.
Bibliografia
Bailey, Andrew, Thornton, Allison Krile, & van Elswyk, Peter. 2021. “Why animalism matters.” Philosophical Studies 178: 2929–2942.
Bailey, Andrew. 2015. “Animalism.” Philosophy Compass 10/12: 867–883.
Baker, Lynn Rudder. 2007. The Metaphysics of Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blatti, Stephan. 2012. “A new argument for animalism.” Analysis 72 (4): 685–690.
Brenner, Andrew. 2024. Personal Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Costandi, Moheb. 2016. Neuroplasticity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Duncan, Matthew. 2021. “Animalism is Either False or Uninteresting (Perhaps Both).” American Philosophical Quarterly 58 (2): 187–200.
Duncan, Matthew. 2022. “Animalists on the run.” Inquiry (2022): 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2022.2074877.
Eberl, Jason T. 2020. The nature of human persons: metaphysics and bioethics. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Feser, Edward. 2018. “Aquinas on the Human Soul.” In The Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism, edited by Jonathan J. Loose, Angus J. L. Menuge, & James P. Moreland, 87–101. Oxford, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Feser, Edward. 2024. Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature. Neunkirchen-Seelscheid, Switzerland: Editionen Scholasticae.
Feuillet, Lionel, Dufour, Henry, & Pelletier, Jean. 2007. “Brain of a white-collar worker.” The Lancet 370 (9583): 262.
Hershenov, David. 2021. “Thinking Animals or Thinking Brains?” Acta Analytica 36: 11–24.
Johnston, Mark. 2007. “Human beings revisited: My body is not an animal.” Oxford Studies in Metaphysics 3: 33–74.
Johnston, Mark. 2016. “Remnant Persons.” In Animalism, edited by Stephan Blatti, Paul F. Snowdon, 89–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kahn, Samuel. 2022. “Plasticity, Numerical Identity, and Transitivity.” International Philosophical Quarterly 62 (3), Is. 247: 296–298.
Lee, Chunghyoung. 2022. “I Am Not the Zygote I Came from because a Different Singleton Could Have Come from It.” Philosophical Review 131 (3): 295–325.
Lee, Patrick, & George, Robert. 2008. Body‐Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lim, Joungbin. 2023. “What the remnant person problem really implies.” Acta Analytica 38: 667–687.
Madden, Rory. 2016. “Thinking Parts.” In Animalism: New Essays on Persons, Animals, and Identity, edited by Stephan Blatti, and Paul F. Snowdon, 180–207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Madden, Rory. 2024. Personal Identity and the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
National Catholic Bioethics Center. 2024. “Integrity in the Determination of Brain Death.” (April 11), ttps://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e3ada1a6a2e8d6a131d1dcd/t/661802bbc44c0135b4f86639/1712849595809/Integity+in+the+Determination+of+Brain+Death.pdf.
Noonan, Harold. 2019. Personal Identity, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
Oderberg, David. 1997. “Modal Properties, Moral Status, and Identity.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (3): 259–98.
Olson, Eric. 1997. The Human Animal: Personal Identity Without Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Olson, Eric. 2007. What Am I? An Essay in Personal Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olson, Eric. 2015. “Animalism and the Remnant-Person Problem.” In Philosophical Perspectives on the Self, by João Fonseca, and Jorge Gonçalves, 21–40. New York: Peter Lang.
Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Parfit, Derek. 1997. “The unimportance of identity.” In Identity, edited by Henry Harris, 13–45. Oxford University Press.
Pawl, Timothy, & Spencer, Mark. 2016. “Christologically Inspired, Empirically Motivated Hylomorphism.” Res Philosophica 93 (1):137–160.
Pope John Paul II. 2001. “Address to the 18th International Congress on Transplants (August 29, 2000).” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 1.1: 89–92.
Pope John Paul II. 2004. “Address to the participants in the international congress on ‘life-sustaining treatments and vegetative state: scientific advances and ethical dilemmas.” https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2004/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040320_congress-fiamc.html.
Pruss, Alexander. 2011. “I Was Once a Fetus.” In Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos, edited by Stephen Napier, 19–42. Dordrecht: Springer.
Rooney, James Dominic. 2021. “Survivalism Suitably Modified.” The Thomist 85, 3: 349–376.
Rooney, James Dominic. 2022. Material Objects in Confucian and Aristotelian Metaphysics. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Rooney, James Dominic. Forthcoming. “The Problem of Thomistic Parts.” Dialectica.
Sauchelli, Andrea. 2019. “Animalism, Abortion, and a Future Like Ours.” Journal of Ethics 23: 317–332.
Skrzypek, Jeremy. 2024. “What Happens When the Zygote Divides?” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 49: 336–353.
Simpson, William M. R. 2023. Hylomorphism, of Elements in the Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Barry, and Berit Brogaard. 2003. “Sixteen Days.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28(1): 45–78.
Stump, Eleonore. 2003. Aquinas. London: Routledge.
Thomas Aquinas. 1920. Summa Theologiae [cited as ST]. 2nd and revised edition. Translated by English Dominican Fathers. New York: Benzinger Bros.
Thomas Aquinas. 1949. Quaestiones de Anima. Translated by John Patrick Rowan. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co.
Toner, Patrick. 2011a. “Hylemorphic Animalism.” Philosophical Studies 155: 65–81.
Toner, Patrick. 2011b. “On Hylemorphism and Personal Identity.” European Journal of Philosophy 19: 454–473.
Toner, Patrick. 2014. “Hylemorphism, Remnant Persons and Personhood.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44: 76–96.
Toner, Patrick. 2024. “Hylemorphic animalism and conjoined twins.” Philosophical Studies 181: 205–222.
Yang, Eric. 2020. “Revisiting the Remnant-Person Problem.” Acta Analytica 35: 389–404.
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2025 James Dominic Rooney

Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
CC BY ND 4.0. Posiadaczem prawa autorskiego (Licencjodawcą) jest Autor, który na mocy umowy licencyjnej udziela nieodpłatnie prawa do eksploatacji dzieła na polach wskazanych w umowie.
- Licencjodawca udziela Licencjobiorcy licencji niewyłącznej na korzystanie z Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego w następujących polach eksploatacji: a) utrwalanie Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego; b) reprodukowanie (zwielokrotnienie) Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego drukiem i techniką cyfrową (e-book, audiobook); c) wprowadzania do obrotu egzemplarzy zwielokrotnionego Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego; d) wprowadzenie Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego do pamięci komputera; e) rozpowszechnianie utworu w wersji elektronicznej w formule open access na licencji Creative Commons (CC BY-ND 3.0) poprzez platformę cyfrową Wydawnictwa Naukowego UMK oraz repozytorium UMK.
- Korzystanie przez Licencjobiorcę z utrwalonego Utworu ww. polach nie jest ograniczone czasowo ilościowo i terytorialnie.
- Licencjodawca udziela Licencjobiorcy licencji do Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego nieodpłatnie na czas nieokreślony
PEŁEN TEKST UMOWY LICENCYJNEJ >>
Statystyki
Liczba wyświetleń i pobrań: 311
Liczba cytowań: 0