more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
If you love a person as a type instead of as a token (i.e. a "person", instead of a physical body) you might prefer a run-down copy of them to no person at all, but at this point our idea of loving a person begins to crack.
Clarification
A token is an item; a type is a set of characteristics
Gist of Idea
You can only really love a person as a token, not as a type
Source
Bernard Williams (Are Persons Bodies? [1970], p.81)
Book Ref
Williams,Bernard: 'Problems of the Self: Papers 1956-1972' [CUP 1979], p.81
A Reaction
Very persuasive. If you love a person you can cope with them getting old. If you own an original watercolour, you can accept that it fades, but you would replace a reproduction of it if that faded. But what, then, is it that you love?
1400 | Some cause must unite the separate temporal sections of a person [Descartes] |
5512 | Locke uses 'self' for a momentary entity, and 'person' for an extended one [Locke, by Martin/Barresi] |
1202 | A person is intelligent, rational, self-aware, continuous, conscious [Locke] |
4042 | Metaphysics requires the idea of people (speakers) located in space and time [Davidson] |
3238 | 'Dead person' isn't a contradiction, so 'person' is somewhat vague [Williams,B] |
3239 | You can only really love a person as a token, not as a type [Williams,B] |
20618 | Persons must be conscious, reasoning, motivated, communicative, self-aware [Warren, by Tuckness/Wolf] |
4669 | Persons are conscious, they relate, they think, they feel, and they are self-aware [Glover] |
6665 | Persons are selves - subjects of experience, with reflexive self-knowledge [Lowe] |