Animalism Versus Lockeanism: A Current Controversy

Noonan, Harold W.

doi:10.1111/1467-9213.00102

Cited by 80 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The bibliography here is extensive. Two essays that reveal the tenor of these polemics are Atkins (2000) and Noonan (1998). 30.…”

Section: Coda: Bare Naked Bodymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Body Worth Having?

Cohen

2008

Theory, Culture & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is the body the vessel which holds the true self locked within it? Is the skin the frontier between 'inside' and 'outside'? What in man is the capsule, and what the encapsulated? (Norbert Elias, The History of Manners)The Body is Not a Defensible Boundary When John Locke famously avowed in The Second Treatise on Government [1689] that: 'Every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any right to but himself' (II § 27), he established a philosophical axiom that affirmed the rights of citizens. From the Lockean perspective -a perspective which has profoundly informed much discussion about political and economic rights since then -we enter into the public domain as owners of our bodies and the labor of those bodies and this property-in-ourselves cannot be taken from us without due process of law. Indeed, according to Locke, the right to own property itself derives from this fundamental proprietary self relation: 'though the things of nature are given in common, yet man, by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it, had still in himself the great foundation of property' (II § 44). In so far as they incorporate this Lockean perspective, our legal and economic notions of individualism and individual rights (such as the right to property) rest on the premise that as embodied persons we possess ourselves. 1 It seems a simple enough formula: to be a (legal) person means to have a body. 2 Starting from this proprietary premise, we derive the most basic concepts that organize our political and economic lives. For example, our prevailing notions of freedom, on the one hand, or wage labor, on the other, both owe their significance to Locke's seminal formulation. Framing our most basic forms of social and personal engagement, these concepts saturate our self-understanding about how we live, both as humans among other humans and as organisms in the world. Indeed, the imaginary

show abstract

“…The bibliography here is extensive. Two essays that reveal the tenor of these polemics are Atkins (2000) and Noonan (1998). 30.…”

Section: Coda: Bare Naked Bodymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Body Worth Having?

Cohen

2008

Theory, Culture & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8 Alternatyvios traktuotės klausimu plg. : Hoffman, Rosenkrantz (1997: 80-90, 128-134;1998), Rosenkrantz (2012). 9 Tarp animalistų vyksta lokalinis ginčas dėl to, ar sulig gyvūno mirties akimirka jis tęsia savo egzistenciją kaip "negyvas gyvūnas", ar gyvūnas paprasčiausiai išnyksta, o jo vietoje atsiranda cheminių ryšių konglomeratas, vadinamas, kaip įprasta, palaikais.…”

unclassified

Apie animalizmo banalumą

Grigianiec¹

2018

LOGOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

apie animalizmo banalumą * on the banality of animalism summaRy animalism is one of the most popular positions within contemporary philosophical anthropology. However, there is a considerable confusion in the literature concerning its claims, implications and consequences. the article considers the basic principles of animalism, the relationship between animalism and physicalism, animalism's position in the debate on personal identity, the main philosophical arguments in favor of animalism. the article comes to conclusion that animalism in its weakest version is a banal claim, completely devoid of philosophical content, although it may be of some ethical import. therefore it would be appropriate for animalism to strengthen its position by means of its main thesis refinement and answering some metaphysical questions that so far have been ignored by its followers. santRauka animalizmas yra viena populiariausių šiuolaikinės antropologijos srities stovyklų. Šios srities darbuose vis dėlto vyrauja neaiškumas, ką animalizmas skelbia ir kokias konsekvencijas numato. Šio teksto užduotis yra, pirma, išvardyti ir aptarti skirtingas pamatinės animalizmo tezės formuluotes, antra, nustatyti animalizmo ryšį su fizikalizmu, trečia, gauti atsakymą į klausimą, ar animalizmas užima kokią nors poziciją ginče dėl asmens tapatybės, bei ketvirta, pristatyti pagrindinius filosofinius argumentus už animalizmą. bendrąja tekste pristatomų analizių išvada siekiama konstatuoti, jog silpniausioji animalizmo versija yra banali ir filosofinio turinio neturinti tezė. Vienintelė protinga išeitis iš šios situacijos yra deramas tos tezės sustiprinimas bei parūpinimas atsakymų į daug metafizinių klausimų, kurių animalizmas, atrodo, iki šiol stengiasi išvengti.

show abstract

“…Advocates of temporal-parts ontologies are an important exception Noonan (1998). endorses something like the picture, and offers a solution to the epistemic problem; for discussion seeOlson 2002. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%