Lecturer on Personal Identity Denied Honorarium

The members of the philosophy department were so convinced by the lecturer's case against personal identity that they refused to pay him his honorarium on the ground that the potential recipient could not be the same person as the lecturer.  This from a piece by Stanley Hauerwas:

It is by no means clear to me that I am the same person who wrote Hannah's Child. Although philosophically I have a stronger sense of personal identity than Daniel Dennett, who after having given a lecture to a department of philosophy on personal identity, was not given his honorarium. The department refused to give him his honorarium because, given Dennett's arguments about personal identity, or lack thereof, the department was not confident that the person who had delivered the lecture would be the same person who would receive the honorarium.

That has to be a joke, right?  It sounds like the sort of tall tale that Dennett would tell. 

My understanding of character, which at least promises more continuity in our lives than Dennett thinks he can claim, does not let me assume that I am the same person who wrote Hannah's Child. I cannot be confident I am the same person because the person who wrote Hannah's Child no doubt was changed by having done so. While I'm unable to state what I learned by writing the book, I can at least acknowledge that I must have been changed by having done so.

Hauerwas is confusing numerical and qualitative identity. Yes, you have been changed by writing your book.  No doubt about it.  Does it follow that you are a numerically different person than the one who wrote the book?  Of course not.  What follows is merely that you are qualitatively different, different in respect of some properties or qualities.

Perhaps there is no strict diachronic personal identity.  This cannot be demonstrated, however, from the trivial observation that people change property-wise over time.  For that is consistent with strict diachronic identity.

Achmed the Terrorist

In the off-chance that you haven't had an occasion to bust your gut over Jeff Dunham's ventriloquy, check this out.

Mockery and derision are important weapons in the culture war.  It is not enough to argue rigorously and patiently against the liberal-left enablers and apologists of radical Islam.  Also needed is to make them and their clients look stupid.  The young are more impressed by the cool than the cogent.

 

 

Bipolar Bears

These dual-residence antipodeans are an exceedingly rare subspecies of ursus maritimus. While they can be quite tame under medication, off their meds they go to extremes.

Dog Shoots Man

What the hell's going on in Florida?  The other day an oven shot a woman, and now a dog has shot a man, with an 'unloaded' gun no less.

Tragedies like these show the need for Dog Control. Members of the Dog Lobby such as Duane LaRufus of the National Hound Association will scream in protest, but moral cretins like him and Leroy Pooch of Dog Owners of America are nothing but greedy shills for the Canine Industrial Complex.  They routinely oppose all sensible Dog Control measures.  Follow the money!

Reason dictates that all dogs must be kept muzzled at all times, and when transported in a vehicle containing a gun, must be kept securely locked in the trunk.  Assault dogs, whose only purpose is to kill and maim, such as Doberman Ass Biters and Pit Bulls, must be banned.  Such breeds are inherently evil and no one ouside of law enforcement and the military has any business owning them. Food magazines for all breeds must be kept strictly limited lest any dog become too rambunctious.  Dog owners should be 'outed' and their names published in the paper.  Special taxes must be levied on all things canine to offset the expenses incurred by society at large  in the wake of the rising tide of dog violence.

Such reasonable measures will strike extremists as draconian, but if even one life can be saved, then they are justified.  We must do something and we must do it now so that tragedies like the one in Florida never happen again.

“Possible Tornado Touches Down in Brooklyn and Queens”

Story here.  "Only a possible tornado?  It is the actual ones that worry me." 

"Did you hear about Jack? He died of an apparent heart attack."  "Wow, hs heart must have been in terrible condition if all it took was an apparent heart attack to do him in."

Bad jokes, no doubt, but they do get us thinking about the various senses of 'possible' and 'apparent.'  How many of each are there?

 

‘Blacklisted’ Blacklisted

Here: "POLICE chiefs have banned IT staff from using the word blacklist over fears it is RACIST." (Via VFR)

This sort of thing is insane, of course. And so I suspect that to argue against it is foolish: it only lends credibility to a view that ought to be mocked and derided. 

But I do argue it out here.  One late-night comic lampooned the 'crispy critter' tanning lady (who brought her child into the tanning booth with her) by saying that the she is so dark it's racist!  That's the way to go.  You PeeCee liberals are so stupid it's racist! What is the antecedent of the last two occurrences of 'it'?  Don't worry, we be in PeeCee land now.  We don't need to talk no sense.

Cosmologists are going to have to be careful what with their talk of black holes.  Someone might take that as 'code' for 'black ho' a phrase that in PeeCee logic (and no, I'm not talking about the propositional calculus) implies that all black females are whores.

Tanning%20Lady