{"title":"再次死里逃生","authors":"Mark Johnston","doi":"10.14428/thl.v8i2.82033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper begins by briefly engaging critically—on theological grounds—with Dean Zimmerman’s defense of Peter van Inwagen’s Christian Materialist idea that we are identical with our bodies, and so survive bodily death by not actually undergoing bodily death. Next, I consider the view of the mind-body relation that Dean himself is tempted by, namely Emergent Substance Dualism, arguing that it is best seen as a fig leaf that at most works to avoid offending contemporary anti-theistic “traducian” sensibilities. In displacing Emergent Substance Dualism, I set out a Neo-Aristotelian account of essence and embodiment that allows for—indeed entails—the possibility of our surviving the death of our bodies. Along the way a characterization of ontological reductionism is given, which avoids the incoherent thought that reduction goes by way of identity. The characterization makes evident why mental events and states are not reducible to physical events. Finally, two non-reductive relations between mental and physical events, namely subserving and implementing, are defined, and then used to characterize the relation of embodiment, and explain how certain mental acts can be “difference-makers” in the physical realm. I only aim to show that given the manifest failure of psycho-physical ontological reduction, this new account of survival adds no further mystery to the mind-body problem.","PeriodicalId":507361,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology","volume":"20 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surviving Death, Again\",\"authors\":\"Mark Johnston\",\"doi\":\"10.14428/thl.v8i2.82033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper begins by briefly engaging critically—on theological grounds—with Dean Zimmerman’s defense of Peter van Inwagen’s Christian Materialist idea that we are identical with our bodies, and so survive bodily death by not actually undergoing bodily death. Next, I consider the view of the mind-body relation that Dean himself is tempted by, namely Emergent Substance Dualism, arguing that it is best seen as a fig leaf that at most works to avoid offending contemporary anti-theistic “traducian” sensibilities. In displacing Emergent Substance Dualism, I set out a Neo-Aristotelian account of essence and embodiment that allows for—indeed entails—the possibility of our surviving the death of our bodies. Along the way a characterization of ontological reductionism is given, which avoids the incoherent thought that reduction goes by way of identity. The characterization makes evident why mental events and states are not reducible to physical events. Finally, two non-reductive relations between mental and physical events, namely subserving and implementing, are defined, and then used to characterize the relation of embodiment, and explain how certain mental acts can be “difference-makers” in the physical realm. I only aim to show that given the manifest failure of psycho-physical ontological reduction, this new account of survival adds no further mystery to the mind-body problem.\",\"PeriodicalId\":507361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology\",\"volume\":\"20 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v8i2.82033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v8i2.82033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文首先从神学角度对齐默尔曼博士为彼得-范因瓦根(Peter van Inwagen)的基督教唯物主义观点所做的辩护进行了简短的批判,他的观点认为我们与我们的身体是相同的,因此我们并没有经历身体的死亡,而是在身体死亡后存活了下来。接下来,我将探讨迪安本人也受到诱惑的心身关系观点,即新兴物质二元论,并认为最好将其视为一种挡箭牌,最多只能避免冒犯当代反神学的 "传统 "情感。在取代新兴物质二元论的过程中,我提出了一种新亚里士多德式的本质与体现论,这种论述允许--事实上也包含--我们在肉体死亡后存活下来的可能性。在此过程中,我给出了本体论还原论的特征,避免了还原是通过同一性来实现的这种不连贯的想法。这一特征说明了为什么心理事件和状态不能还原为物理事件。最后,定义了精神事件与物理事件之间的两种非还原关系,即 "服务"(subserving)和 "实施"(implementing),并以此来描述 "体现"(embodiment)关系,解释某些精神行为如何成为物理领域的 "差异制造者"。我的目的只是想说明,鉴于心理-物理本体论还原的明显失败,这种关于生存的新解释并没有给心身问题增添更多的神秘色彩。
The paper begins by briefly engaging critically—on theological grounds—with Dean Zimmerman’s defense of Peter van Inwagen’s Christian Materialist idea that we are identical with our bodies, and so survive bodily death by not actually undergoing bodily death. Next, I consider the view of the mind-body relation that Dean himself is tempted by, namely Emergent Substance Dualism, arguing that it is best seen as a fig leaf that at most works to avoid offending contemporary anti-theistic “traducian” sensibilities. In displacing Emergent Substance Dualism, I set out a Neo-Aristotelian account of essence and embodiment that allows for—indeed entails—the possibility of our surviving the death of our bodies. Along the way a characterization of ontological reductionism is given, which avoids the incoherent thought that reduction goes by way of identity. The characterization makes evident why mental events and states are not reducible to physical events. Finally, two non-reductive relations between mental and physical events, namely subserving and implementing, are defined, and then used to characterize the relation of embodiment, and explain how certain mental acts can be “difference-makers” in the physical realm. I only aim to show that given the manifest failure of psycho-physical ontological reduction, this new account of survival adds no further mystery to the mind-body problem.