Yixuan (Hunter) Jin

This paper tries to support the view that the permanent severing of one’s psychological connections across time is a distinctive harm; we are harmed when our mental lives, either in whole or in part, are prevented from being carried forward or developed continuously into the future. To support this view, I aim to show that it offers a better solution to an otherwise vexing explanatory problem than plausible alternatives, and at least as good a solution as the leading alternative. The problem is that of explaining why it would sometimes be rational to refuse life-saving treatment where such treatment would entail the loss of one’s memory and personality. Among the alternative explanations I consider is the view—advanced by Jeff McMahan and others—that the appropriateness of prudential concern for one’s future self is partly determined by the degree of psychological unity one experiences over time.

Abstract: Gameplay and the associated attitudes are important for establishing epistemic permissibility in a range of cases. Or so I argue. I make this argument by comparing pseudo-intellectual communities to what I call Epistemic LARPing communities (examples include Model UN and Ethics Bowl). These two kinds of communities share many structural features, as well as providing community members with similar epistemic and prudential benefits. The epistemically relevant difference is that Epistemic LARPing communities are engaged in gameplay, whereas other kinds of pseudo-intellectual communities are not. The attitudes involved in gameplay make it epistemically permissible to join Epistemic LARPing groups. I give an account of how this works.