Individuation, Identity, and Resurrection in Thomas Jackson and John Locke

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 N/A PHILOSOPHY AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY Pub Date : 2021-04-08 DOI:10.5840/ACPQ202147222
Jon W. Thompson
{"title":"Individuation, Identity, and Resurrection in Thomas Jackson and John Locke","authors":"Jon W. Thompson","doi":"10.5840/ACPQ202147222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper outlines the views of two 17th century thinkers (Thomas Jackson and John Locke) on the question of the metaphysics of resurrection. I show that Jackson and Locke each depart from central 17th century Scholastic convictions regarding resurrection and philosophical anthropology (convictions laid out in section II). Each holds that matter or material continuity is not a plausible principle of diachronic individuation for living bodies such as human beings. Despite their rejection of the traditional view, they each provide a defence of the possibility of a personal afterlife. I outline these (quite different) defences in sections III–IV. I then argue (section V) that it is likely either that Locke had read Jackson on the issue of resurrection or that the two were influenced by a common source. I argue that matter might provide a suitable principle of diachronic individuation in both everyday cases of living bodies and in the case of resurrection.","PeriodicalId":44497,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/ACPQ202147222","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper outlines the views of two 17th century thinkers (Thomas Jackson and John Locke) on the question of the metaphysics of resurrection. I show that Jackson and Locke each depart from central 17th century Scholastic convictions regarding resurrection and philosophical anthropology (convictions laid out in section II). Each holds that matter or material continuity is not a plausible principle of diachronic individuation for living bodies such as human beings. Despite their rejection of the traditional view, they each provide a defence of the possibility of a personal afterlife. I outline these (quite different) defences in sections III–IV. I then argue (section V) that it is likely either that Locke had read Jackson on the issue of resurrection or that the two were influenced by a common source. I argue that matter might provide a suitable principle of diachronic individuation in both everyday cases of living bodies and in the case of resurrection.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
托马斯·杰克逊和约翰·洛克的个人化、身份认同与复活
本文概述了17世纪两位思想家(托马斯·杰克逊和约翰·洛克)对复活形而上学问题的看法。我表明,杰克逊和洛克都偏离了17世纪中期学术界对复活和哲学人类学的信念(信念见第二节)。每个人都认为,物质或物质的连续性并不是人类等生物体历时个性化的合理原则。尽管他们拒绝传统观点,但他们都为个人死后的可能性提供了辩护。我在第三节至第四节中概述了这些(截然不同的)辩护。然后我认为(第五节),洛克可能读过杰克逊关于复活的文章,或者两人受到了一个共同来源的影响。我认为,无论是在日常的活体情况下,还是在复活的情况下,物质都可能提供一个合适的历时个性化原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration Warranted Catholic Belief in advance Newman the Fallibilist in advance A Transcategorial Conception of Dynamis and Energeia in advance A Correction to Dillard’s Reading of Geach’s Temporality Argument for Non-Materialism in advance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1