Philosophical Studies 178 (9):2929-2942 (2021)
AbstractHere is a question as intriguing as it is brief: what are we? The animalist’s answer is equal in brevity: we are animals. This stark formulation of the animalist slogan distances it from nearby claims—that we are essentially animals, for example, or that we have purely biological criteria of identity over time. Is the animalist slogan—unburdened by modal or criterial commitments—still interesting, though? Or has it lost its bite? In this article we address such questions by presenting a positive case for the importance of animalism and applying that case to recent critiques.
Similar books and articles
Generic Animalism.Andrew M. Bailey & Peter van Elswyk - 2021 - Journal of Philosophy 118 (8):405-429.
The Feeling Animal.Andrew M. Bailey & Allison Krile Thornton - 2020 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 7:554-567.
Animalism, Abortion, and a Future Like Ours.Andrea Sauchelli - 2019 - The Journal of Ethics 23 (3):317-332.
What Animalists Should Say About Animals.Andrew Higgins - 2015 - Southwest Philosophy Review 31 (2):109-124.
Animalism and personal identity.Stephan Blatti - 2007 - In M. Bekoff (ed.), Encyclopedia of Human-Animal Relationships. Greenwood Press.
Animalism versus lockeanism: No contest.David Mackie - 1999 - Philosophical Quarterly 49 (196):369-376.
The Stony Metaphysical Heart of Animalism.David Shoemaker - 2016 - In Stephan Blatti & Paul Snowdon (eds.), Animalism. Oxford University Press. pp. 303-328.
Is Animalism Undermined by Conjoined Twinning Cases?Hugo Luzio - 2017 - Laterális - The University of Reading Journal of Undergraduate Philosophy (1):2-10.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Real People: Personal Identity Without Thought Experiments.Kathleen V. Wilkes - 1988 - Oxford University Press.