tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-520740383609345670.post5350022174536239098..comments2014-03-05T11:21:57.267-08:00Comments on Manitoba Philosophy: Handed EssentialityDamian Melamedoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17696747676972679428noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-520740383609345670.post-11687112221763068722013-12-04T18:37:36.433-08:002013-12-04T18:37:36.433-08:00I'm sceptical of the distinction between right...I'm sceptical of the distinction between right-hand and left-hand essentiality. I think this is because any process that might make you concrete would take away concreteness if happened in reverse, and any process that might take concreteness away would give you concreteness if happened in reverse. The converses would also hold.<br />In particular, suppose you think that you were once a concrete embryo, but developed into a person. Then why not think that if you anti-aged (like Benjamin Button) and became an embryo once more, you would remain concrete? Why would there be an asymmetry?<br /><br />On another note, if we're looking for an explanation of why being a person is non-accidental, there may be a middle ground between accidents and essences. For instance, it's no accident that you have two legs, but it's not essential either. Why? Because having two legs follows (albeit not perfectly) from your essence. You are essentially a human organism, healthy human organisms have two legs, so it's not an accident if you have two legs. Personhood could also be such a non-accident. It follows imperfectly from you being a human organism that you (at some point in your life) are a person.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02122784992711602521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-520740383609345670.post-136203235735193392013-12-04T18:05:48.090-08:002013-12-04T18:05:48.090-08:00I think I'm kind of confused about the definit...I think I'm kind of confused about the definition of left vs. right handed essentiality. <br />Specifically left-handed. I guess I am confused as to why concreteness is involved in clause (ii), why that matters outside of this argument, or what work it is doing, really (I'm confused about my confusion, so I'm not putting this well, sorry). <br />I think it is because of that that I have some problems with the definition of left-handed essential properties. Fun fact 1: the number nine has the property of being-my-favourite-number. The number nine was never concrete, but the number nine acquired the property of being-my-favourite-number at some point (fun fact 2: my favourite number used to be 3). So, nine acquired the property-of-being-my-favourite-number, but was not previously concrete. So, being-my-favourite-number is left-handed essential to nine. I'd be inclined to go the disjunctive route for essential properties (if either right or left handed, then essential), but it doesn't really seem to me that being-my-favourite-number is an essential property of nine. Maybe it's better to go the both-left-and-right-handed essential property route (and I think going this way you lose the being-an-author issue as well, but I'm not sure).Carolyn Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12606839419391995711noreply@blogger.com