Frederick Charles Doepke

Following Wiggins’ seminal article, On Being in the Same Place at the Same Time, this article presents the first comprehensive account of the relation of material constitution, an asymmetrical, transitive relation which totally orders distinct ‘entities’ (individuals, pluralities or masses of stuff) which ‘spatially coincide.’ Their coincidence in space is explained by a recursive definition of ‘complete-composition’, weaker than strict mereological indiscernibility, which also explains the variety of logically independent similarities in such cases. This account is ‘analytical’, dealing with ‘putative’ cases in general. The main strategy is to rationally reconstruct Aristotle’s notion of material cause. It is developed more fully with a theory of how to justify admitting generable and perishable things into the natural world, in The Kinds of Things: A Theory of Personal Identity Based on Transcendental Argument (Open Court, 1996).

I defend a theory of philosophy, suggested explicitly by Allan Gibbard (and inspired by Kant), in which the main branches may be considered as fundamental inquiry into norms of different kinds. Special attention is given to how even metaphysics fits the description. The theory is defended by explaining a variety of ‘known facts’ about philosophy, understood as facts commonly recognized in academic philosophy. These include: that philosophy spans a diversity of areas, including logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics; that philosophy has seemed, at least, to be different in kind from other areas of inquiry; that philosophy lacks experts and official procedures of justification; that philosophy appears important to some but not to others.

The main contribution of this work is to develop the account of material constitution presented in Spatially Coinciding Objects (Ratio 24, 1982) and a series of related articles. This account was merely ‘analytical’ in that it applied generously to ‘putative’ examples of distinct entities (individuals, pluralities and masses of stuff) in the same place at the same time. The account herein is ‘critical’ in that it seeks justification for recognizing the existence of entities constituted in addition to the entities that allegedly constitute them. While the earlier account used examples such as a clay statue and the clay of the statue for purposes of illustrating material constitution, the present account would consider ‘reducing’ the statue to the clay, and seeks justification for how to resist this and admit the existence of generable and perishable natural objects in general. The justification sought is ‘deep’ in the sense that (unlike the popular ‘method of cases) it does not belong to ‘descriptive’ metaphysics (in Strawson’s sense) but is sufficiently potent to counter ‘revisionist’ views. Transcendental arguments, beginning with austere assumptions of justification itself, are thereby employed. Suggestions are made about what to conclude about our own identity, which amount to supporting animalism.

That no member of a natural kind can switch kinds is a consequence of David Wiggins’ view that the identity conditions for such things are given by the natural kind itself. If dog is a natural kind, then dogs must be dogs and one dog cannot ‘turn into’ something else, say, by gradually ‘becoming’ a mass of tissue (as Marjorie Price had held). Were such a transition to involve the persistence of the same thing, then the thing in question would comply with conditions of identity not restricted to dogs. To provide for such transitions James Baillie suggests alternative conditions of identity, based on Andrew Brennan’s notion of ‘survival’ (itself borrowed from Parfit). Survival requires that the earlier thing be ‘structurally similar to’, and ‘play a significant and direct role in the production of’ the later thing (sufficiency is gained if, in addition, they are composed of the same kind of matter). Unlike identity, however, survival is what Wiggins calls a ‘branching’ relation, capable of linking a single thing with two or more equal ‘competitors’ (as apparently happens in cases of brain fission). To provide conditions of identity per se, Baillie follows Parfit, who claimed that our identity is preserved by psychological continuity when there is no branching. Members of natural kinds, such as dogs, are now said to be reidentifiable over time by the relation of non-branching survival. I argue against this on the ground that we can know when this relation obtains only when we are already able to individuate things by a different sort of relation, such as those associated with natural kinds.

The ‘step’ to individuation is taken when one can perceive an object as a single, countable thing. While Strawson envisages this step as one from feature placing, I argue that the presence of demonstratives renders this problematic. The step is best seen as taken from universal recognition, as explained by Price. This shows that the step is ‘greater’ than we might have expected. There is a mutual dependence of the abilities to individuate, to grasp demonstrative concepts and to draw a distinction between appearance and reality.

The general account of material constitution presented in my article, Spatially Coinciding Objects (Ratio vol. 24.1, June 1982), is further developed. There we saw how distinct objects in the same place at the same time can be strictly ordered by an asymmetrical, transitive relation of material constitution. I show herein how this relation can conceivably form ‘upright trees’ in which one object constitutes two other objects, neither of which constitutes the other. It is, however, impossible to have ‘inverted trees’ in which one thing is constituted by two things neither of which constitutes the other. (This impossibility is implied when supposing that there is just one thing which counts as the proximate matter of a thing.)

This introductory text offers a coherent treatment of issues in a wide range of areas of philosophy. It begins with logic (in a broad, traditional sense that includes epistemology), since the concepts of this area illuminate metaphysics, covered next in the sequence. (Consider, for example, how material reality is what is known through sensation or how mind is what is known through introspection.). Ethics is covered next, because views on well-being and morality have been deepened by being couched in metaphysical views that yield conceptions of human nature. For similar reasons, the section on ethics comes before that on social philosophy. It is my firm belief that the greatest philosophers achieve the depth for which they are admired by constructing systems in which the various areas of philosophy are unified. With this inspiration, I have put the discussions in a logical order, in which the earlier ones anticipate and illuminate later ones. Something like a story is told.

Support is given to Habermas's argument that we interpret thoughts only by seeing persons as actually justified in their circumstances. Habermas holds further that his argument extends to moral thinking, in that we understand it only by actually taking the moral point of view, and he thinks this is illustrated by Kohlberg's theory of moral development. While this illustration is denied here on the ground that Kohlberg's theory accepts Rawls's theory of justice, it is argued that the extension to morality can be made with a theory like Gewirth's, in which morality appears as a form of rationality.

‘Second substances’ are Aristotle’s species and genera that reveal the general nature of a thing. Sortals correspond to the most specific, least abstract of these, normally thought of as ‘the’ kind to which a thing belongs. I argue against a common view that artifact terms such as ‘clock’ or ‘pen’ are suitable as sortals and for their being regarded as more like genera. If we can individuate clocks and pens as we do trees and rocks, by a combination of sortal plus ostension, then we must use more specific sortals which indicate the structures by virtue of which the objects perform the functions of clocks or pens. Functions by themselves do not supply the identity conditions of sortals. Similar reasoning supports Wiggins’ view that ‘the kind’ to which we belong is our biological species, not the purely functional kind of being a person.

By a generalization of Parfit’s argument for the unimportance of personal identity in survival, it is argued that the practical significance that appears to attach to our identity belongs to the relation of direct control, which we exercise through will. What explains the special concern and moral responsibility that normally pertains only to ourselves is that it is ordinarily just ourselves whom we animate by our decisions. But thought experiments involving amnesia and replication seem to show that direct control only contingently coexists with personal identity. If so, the practically important question is whom we can control directly and the metaphysical question of our identity may be of only theoretical interest. The practical importance of the metaphysics of personal identity is defended by showing that our beliefs about which things we are determine what we can will. Such beliefs influence emotions of fear and the like and circumscribe our sense of responsibility.