Abstract

In this paper I will discuss Eric Olson’s account of the persistence of human animals. I will first show that Olson is committed to the view that brainstem persistence is necessary and sufficient for the persistence of human animals. I will then criticize the view by developing two thought experiments. These thought experiments show that the persistence of the brainstem is neither necessary nor sufficient for the persistence of human animals. The upshot of the discussion is that any future account of human animal persistence, and thus any animalist account of our own persistence, should steer away from accounting for human persistence via the brainstem

Quantity: