The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 55 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present
Open accessAbstract
Derek Parfit’s early work on the metaphysics of persons has had a vast influence on Western philosophical debates about the nature of personal identity and moral theory. Within the study of Buddhism, it also has sparked a continuous comparative discourse, which seeks to explicate Buddhist philosophical principles in light of Parfit’s conceptual framework. Examining important Parfitian-inspired studies of Buddhist philosophy, this article points out various ways in which a Parfitian lens shaped, often implicitly, contemporary understandings of the anātman (no-self) doctrine and its relation to Buddhist ethics. I discuss in particular three dominant elements appropriated by Parfitian-inspired scholarship: Parfit’s theoretical categories; philosophical problems raised by his reductionist theory of persons; and Parfit’s argumentative style. I argue that the three elements used in this scholarship constitute different facets of one methodological approach to cross-cultural philosophy, which relies on Western terminology and conceptual schemes to establish a conversation with non-Western philosophy. I suggest that while this methodology is fruitful in many ways, philosophy as a cosmopolitan space may benefit significantly from approaching Buddhist philosophy using its own categories and terminology.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Hanner argues that Derek Parfit’s reductionist account of persons has strongly and often implicitly shaped late-20th- and early-21st-century Western interpretations of the Buddhist no-self doctrine and its ethical implications. The article surveys key Parfitian readings and contends that while such comparisons are productive, they risk subordinating Buddhist philosophy to Western categories, and it recommends greater use of Buddhist frameworks.
Key findings
- The paper identifies three recurring Parfitian elements in Buddhist studies: Parfit’s theoretical categories (reductionism, eliminativism, non-reductionism), the philosophical problems raised by his reductionism and utilitarianism, and his argumentative style; these function as facets of one cross-cultural method.
- It traces shifts among interpreters: Collins first compared Parfit’s qualitative identity and successive selves with Buddhist conventional persons and altruism, later qualifying that anātman is not fully reductionist because conventional truth remains necessary; Duerlinger extended reductionism to synchronic identity; Giles classified Buddhism as eliminativist; Siderits defined reductionism and eliminativism semantically and treated anātman as reductionist because person-discourse is useful and translatable.
- Perrett used Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra 8.90–103 to address obligations to future generations, while Siderits reconstructed a Buddhist reply to the alienation objection through ironic involvement and conventional persons.
- Goodman’s Consequences of Compassion (2009) is said to be implicitly Parfitian in three ways: grounding ethics in anātman, emphasizing deconstruction of identity, and privileging ultimate truth; the author contrasts this with five Bodhicaryāvatāra verses (8.111, 8.112, 8.115, 8.117, 8.120) where Śāntideva uses conventional identity and habituation to justify altruism.
Methods
- Conceptual and historical survey with philosophical argument, not an empirical study; it examines representative Parfitian-inspired scholarship from the 1980s onward, including Collins, Duerlinger, Giles, Siderits, Perrett, and Goodman.
- Analysis focuses on how Western categories, problems, and argument forms are transferred into Buddhist exegesis, with close reading of selected Bodhicaryāvatāra verses as a counterexample to Goodman’s consequentialist reading.
- Sources are primarily published books, articles, and translations; no dataset or formal coding is used.
Limitations
- Stated: the survey is not exhaustive; sources were selected to highlight typical interpretive features; no work is treated in full; Parfit’s historical and thematic contexts are not elaborated; differences between Parfitian categories and Buddhist anātman are left beyond scope.
- Evident: the argument is interpretive and selective, centered on a limited set of scholars and verses, so it cannot establish how widespread or uniform these Parfitian tendencies are; it also relies on English translations for the Śāntideva verses.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
69 Own interpretation · 38 No basis given · 31 No full text of the sources · 22 Sources not found · 7 Not checked yet
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within the study of Buddhism, it also has sparked a continuous comparative discourse, which seeks to explicate Buddhist philosophical principles in light of Parfit's conceptual framework.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Steven Collins's studies of Theravāda Buddhism played a key role in suggesting Parfit's philosophy as an interesting Western parallel to the Buddhist doctrine of anātman.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Collins 1982 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Following Parfit's initial engagement with Buddhist thought, various scholars of Buddhism employed his scheme to explicate the Buddhist anātman doctrine.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Parfit himself was one of the first scholars to produce a Parfitian reading of Buddhism.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, many of the authors who endorsed Parfit's taxonomy were compelled to modify it in certain ways (just like Parfit himself) in order to bridge the conceptual discrepancy.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“At a certain point, however, Duerlinger seems to deviate from Parfitian reductionism.Whereas in Parfit's thought the two principles concern personal identity over time, or diachronic identity, Duerlinger extends the sense of reductionism to the synchronic level, namely, to the unity of persons at a given moment.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Duerlinger 1993 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In his early work, which culminates in the 1984 book Reasons and Persons, Parfit rejects the commonsensical, non-reductionist view of persons.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Parfit 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I argue that the three elements used in this scholarship constitute different facets of one methodological approach to cross-cultural philosophy, which relies on Western terminology and conceptual schemes to establish a conversation with non-Western philosophy.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Examining important Parfitian-inspired studies of Buddhist philosophy, this article points out various ways in which a Parfitian lens shaped, often implicitly, contemporary understandings of the anātman (no-self) doctrine and its relation to Buddhist ethics.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, endorsements of the Parfitian scheme, despite the modifications made by these scholars, result in different understandings of the Parfitian categories themselves.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 107
- It may state two separate claims as one. 46
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I discuss in particular three dominant elements appropriated by Parfitian-inspired scholarship: Parfit's theoretical categories; philosophical problems raised by his reductionist theory of persons; and Parfit's argumentative style.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of the works that I discuss below draw on Parfit's conceptual scheme to establish a conversation of equals between Buddhist and Western philosophers, and to demonstrate the relevance of classical Buddhist thought to contemporary philosophy.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Unlike Parfit, they found the distinction between reductionism and eliminativism important, and considered the question of which of these two categories served as a better description of the Buddhist doctrine of anātman.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This has not gone unrecognized in the discourse: some studies have displayed a remarkable awareness of the hermeneutical aspect of their enterprise.They define their interaction with Buddhist ideas using such terms as 'rational reconstruction,' 'interpreting,' or 'reeducating,' which bear a subjective flavor, rather than aiming at a neutral historical representation.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And, like Parfit, some of them hoped to develop an account with relevance to Western philosophical discourse.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Here, as Charles Goodman (2005, p. 381) notes, the disagreement between the two camps emerged not only because they had different opinions on the appropriate classification, but also because they understood the classifications themselves differently: as in a comedy of errors, what some authors called reductionism others understood as eliminativism, and while certain authors were unanimous on the a”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Goodman 2005 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Parfitian-inspired readings of Buddhist philosophy began to gain prominence during the second half of the 1980s.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Derek Parfit's theory of personal identity consists of two primary elements: the reductionist view and the psychological criterion of identity.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Other persons, Perrett concludes, include future persons.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Perrett 2003 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Perrett explains that Śāntideva's argument is founded on the universalizability principle, which states that moral judgements must have a universal applicability, and on the prescriptive nature of moral judgements, which makes such judgements immediately applicable to actual and hypothetical cases.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Perrett 2003 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To claim that Parfitian readings invariably assumed that Buddhist authors were answering precisely the same philosophical puzzles that occupy Western thinkers would be unsubstantiated.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Parfit's inquiry into the metaphysics of persons, then, yields three kinds of theories about the nature of persons and personal identity: constitutive reductionism, eliminative reductionism, and non-reductionism.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Parfit 1995 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, these interpretations have asserted the intellectual proximity between the Western questions and the Buddhist answers with varying degrees of conviction, from the weaker claim that Buddhist texts offer new perspectives or tools for addressing themes in Western philosophy, to the stronger claim that Buddhist arguments anticipate Western questions, or even offer direct answers to them.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If a sufficient number of relations is maintained, this entails the survival and endurance of the person; in other words, the person remains one and the same.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“According to Parfit, eliminative reductionism agrees with constitutive reductionism in claiming that personal identity can be reduced to more basic facts about the person, but holds that the reducibility of persons means that a 'person' is a redundant concept that should be eliminated from our foundational ontology.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Parfit 1995 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the critical history of Indological scholarship, the exercise of looking for answers to Western philosophical questions in Asian literature tends to involve the introduction of external agendas into the texts.At least under certain circumstances, this practice has the potential to project an interpreter's cultural and personal presuppositions onto a given classical work.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The critical history of Indological scholarship is correct that seeking Western philosophical answers in Asian literature tends to introduce external agendas.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simply put, while reductionists believe that persons exist on some level, eliminativists maintain that persons do not exist at all.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Under this understanding of the categories, Siderits classifies the anātman doctrine as reductionist, since discourses about persons and personal identity can be systematically translated into our ultimate ontology and are thus useful to human life in the two aforementioned senses.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Siderits 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A moral theory that prescribes the maximization of welfare through the eradication of ownerless experiences of pain disregards the distinct personhood of agents and their individual life.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Concepts that can be reduced to our ultimate ontology are useful in some ways to human discourse and communication.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In his reading, Perrett conflates the premises that guide Śāntideva in this argument with those of reductionism, after which he claims that the passage offers an Indian answer to our moral obligation to future generations.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Perrett 2003, p. 35 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What Parfit here attempts to do, I suggest, is to bridge the eisegetical discrepancy.He does this by reformulating the Western category under which he classifies the Buddhist doctrine of anātman, so that it agrees more accurately with Buddhist textual sources without completely losing its relevance to his own philosophical concerns.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the eliminativist razor pertains only to those instances in which redundant concepts cannot be systematically reduced to the basic concepts of our ultimate ontology.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites p.456-457
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this does not dissolve the eisegetical tension.In such cases, the tension takes on a subtler form, negotiating between the demands of a faithful reconstruction and a creative, philosophically relevant interpretation.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They are helpful in maximizing the welfare of persons and should be retained.Other concepts, which are less advantageous in this regard, should be eliminated (Siderits 2003, pp. 38-39).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Siderits 2003, pp. 38-39
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This additional criterion, on the one hand, slightly distances Siderits from Parfit's account; on the other hand, it echoes Buddhist expositions of the anātman doctrine as expounded by the Milindapañha”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Milindapañha
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“he also emphasizes another contrast between reductionism and eliminativism, concerning the utility of concepts.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“James Duerlinger (1993) seeks to demonstrate that the anātman doctrine, as set out by the Indian Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu, is reductionist.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Duerlinger 1993 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such disagreements are hardly surprising, since the categories of reductionism and eliminativism do not themselves emerge from Buddhist thought.They are borrowed from an outside conceptual scheme and, hence, are not fully isomorphic with the conceptual field of the Buddhist view.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Parfit's reductionist view of persons is supplemented by his psychological criterion of personal identity, sometimes called the 'Identity Doesn't Matter' view (Shoemaker 2016).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Shoemaker 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Yet Parfit does not go on to assert that his theory of persons is entirely distinct from the Buddhist anātman doctrine, as some of his critics have argued.Instead, he remaps the reductionist territory in such a way that leaves room for different variations of the metaphysical stance.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Parfit 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this later work he takes the position that there is an essential difference between the two views: in reductionism, persons exist but can be reduced to more basic facts, whereas Buddhist texts maintain that persons are entirely non-existent (Parfit 1995, p. 17).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Parfit 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this second meaning of reductionism, persons can be reduced to a number of particular concurrent elements at any given instant.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Duerlinger 1993 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This principle grounds the attitude that we must give equal moral weight to our interests and to those of others.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, they reveal that while Parfitian-inspired works show an interest in understanding the Buddhist stance on its own terms, they are alsosometimes primarilyguided by considerations stemming from contemporaneous Western intellectual debates.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In various passages from early Buddhist texts, Parfit discovers an Indian version of his reductionist theory of persons, and takes it as evidence for the universal validity of the view he advances (Parfit 1984, p. 272).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Parfit 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Duerlinger opens his argument by characterizing reductionism as a position that expresses two principles: (1) the existence of persons can be reduced to the existence of a brain and a body, and a chain of physical and mental events; and (2) personal identity over time can be reduced to more particular, impersonal facts.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Duerlinger 1993 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Eliminativism, on this definition, is an equivalent philosophical approach to reductionism, since it prescribes the elimination of those discourses which make use of concepts that are not part of our ultimate ontology.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites p.456-457
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From another perspective, by asserting that a given action is to be done to others, one asserts that, all other things being equal, the same ought to be done to oneself.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Characterizing the Buddhist position as reductionist, therefore, is especially important to him, as such a claim substantiates his own position.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Thus, reductionism and eliminativism are not mutually exclusive; we can apply a reductionist approach to some concepts, while adopting an eliminativist approach towards others (p.456-457).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites p.456-457
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eliminated concepts, on the other hand, are not useful to us, since they cannot be systematically reduced to the basic concepts of our ultimate ontology.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, Śāntideva's altruistic rule is to be asserted with respect to any individual, in any situation.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This objection, Siderits notes, is pertinent to reductionism in its Western and Buddhist versions, and to the consequentialist principle that Siderits recognizes in the Śāntideva Passage.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Siderits goes on to reconstruct a Buddhist answer using elements from the two answers of indirect consequentialism and the denial of alienation.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The eisegetical tension seems to be intrinsic to any comparative endeavor.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This account is largely consistent with Parfit's framing of his own theory.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The gist of the objection is that in the name of impartial benevolence, the demands and suppositions of these theories lead to an alienation from everything that is personal: one's personal commitments, feelings, and sentiments, and the people who stand in special relation to oneself.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Collins also notes that the Buddhist negation of the self has similar ethical implications to Parfit's position, namely that both lead to an altruistic attitude (Collins 1982, pp. 177, 193-194, and 294 n. 22).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Collins 1982 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“According to the reductionist view, however, only the person's physical and psychological events and the relations between them exist.Consequently, persons can be reduced to more basic entities.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Parfit 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Siderits acknowledges that certain adjustments may be required for the Parfitian taxonomy in order for it to accommodate the Buddhist view (p.461), and he does in fact revise it.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Borrowed Categories: Reductionism, Non-Reductionism, and Eliminativism
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites p.461
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Roy Perrett's Parfitian account seeks to demonstrate how Indian philosophy, specifically Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra, can offer a different perspective on the theme of our moral responsibility towards future generations (Perrett 2003, p. 35).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Perrett 2003, p. 35 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“One striking measure of the level of his reasoning is the degree to which he anticipates a key development in recent Western ethical theory”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Goodman 2009, p. 92 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Buddhist philosophers rely on other argumentative methods and styles to defend their metaphysical positions, including the anātman doctrine.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By emphasizing this aspect, Goodman's interpretation seems to disregard the relevance of the positive reconstruction of identity to ethics.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“His line of reasoning is as follows: (1) the deconstruction of identity effaces the dividing line between self and other; (2) this breaking of barriers between the practitioner and others serves, then, as the basis for views and attitudes, which are indispensable for a consequentialist ethical behavior; (3) it follows that, from an ethical point of view, the doctrine of anātman serves to advance a”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the second level of compassion encompasses the insight of anātman.This compassion, he explains, is based on the realization that 'the boundaries between the lives of sentient beings are conventional, and do not reflect any”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Goodman 2009, p. 5 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Goodman also presents the principle of anātman at the level of moral reasons (pp.92-93), in order to show how the anātman doctrine can provide a ground for these moral reasons.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites pp.92-93
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“He explains that an experiential realization of the absence of a permanent self reduces our selfishness and removes false views, which interfere with the brahma-vihāras (compassion, in particular).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Goodman's move focuses on the ultimate reality of the person and the deconstruction of identity, and shows how they can ground and justify moral principles.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A moral agent who devotes herself to an engagement of this kind would maintain her personal projects, relationships, and so on, while realizing that these are only instrumental for the maximization of happiness.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Goodman advances it along with other thought experiments in order to clarify the sense in which, according to Buddhism, selves are 'vague,' as he calls it (following Siderits 2003), and therefore do not ultimately exist.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Siderits 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(1) By favoring anātman as a principle that serves to ground ethical theory.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Goodman does not further examine what reconstructs the person, and does not draw any philosophical implications for moral theory from this aspect of anātman.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In Parfit, these thought experiments served to demonstrate that in certain cases there is no clear answer to the question of whether personal identity was maintained or not.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Parfit
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Goodman detects a striking similarity between Parfit's and Śāntideva's arguments, both in their metaphysical and ethical implications.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Goodman 2009, p. 92 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Thus Goodman writes, in response to Taylor, 'That we must not only realize the ultimate nonexistence of any substantial self but also overcome the whole phenomenon of having an identity is an important message of the Mahāyāna scriptures ' (2009, p. 11)”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Goodman 2009, p. 11 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Goodman indicates the relation between the insight of anātman and the four brahma-vihāras or 'sublime states': metta (loving-kindness), karuṇā (compassion), muditā (joy) and upekkhā (equanimity).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Goodman introduces the principle of anātman from a metaphysical and a semantic perspective.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, this type of compassion is directed not at beings, but rather at dharmas, namely, the momentary physical and psychological building blocks that together constitute the conventional person (and composite entities, more generally).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“According to Siderits, in the Buddhist reply to the alienation objection, personregarding attitudes would be considered as instrumental to the overall welfare of beings.Such attitudes would also be seen as preserving an ontological equilibrium between the ultimate truth, in which persons do not exist, and the conventional truth, in which persons are real; as well as an ethical equilibrium, between”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This presupposition results in giving less attention to the ways the conventional meaning of the self can have benefits for ethical theory.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After defining the principle of anātman, Goodman defends at length the validity of the deconstruction of the self.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In his semantic account, Goodman explains that the difference between the two levels of reality lies in the linguistic modes of expression used to describe them.Statements which describe dharmas are true in the ultimate sense, whereas statements which describe composites like persons (in other words, collections of dharmas) are not ultimately true.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A Buddhist, according to his account, would adopt an attitude of 'ironic engagement', entering into wholehearted interactions with conventional, unified persons, while acknowledging the whole time that these are ultimately nonexistent.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This conclusion, which openly echoes ideas developed by Parfit, exhibits once again the threefold presupposition that I mentioned earlier”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In order to show that the realist view of the self as a distinct entity is untenable, Goodman draws on Classical Buddhist arguments against the existence of a permanent self, alongside arguments by Western thinkers, including three thought experiments borrowed from Parfit.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Parfit
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In his book Consequences of Compassion, Goodman classifies three forms of compassion, which he sees as a motivation that articulates Buddhism's consequentialist approach (Goodman 2009, p. 5).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Goodman 2009, p. 5 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These states of mind, which are considered wholesome from a Buddhist point of view, also contain the materials to articulate a form of consequentialism, according to Goodman (p. 50).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Goodman p. 50
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) By favoring the deconstruction of the person and its significance to ethics.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Siderits defines a vague term as a term that allows for borderline cases; namely, cases in which it is logically and semantically indeterminate whether the term applies or not.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Siderits 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Because ultimately there are no experiencers of suffering, we can legitimately act in a way that produces small harms for some people, but benefits others, so long as the total amount of welfare is maximized.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Goodman
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Derek Parfit has argued that his reductionist views about personal identity can be used to support a consequentialist view of ethics.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Goodman 2009, p. 92 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, as in Roy Perrett's account, Goodman enlists Śāntideva's arguments from selflessness in chapter 8 of the Bodhicaryāvatāra (the Śāntideva Passage).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, the 'Combined Spectrum' thought experiment involves an imaginary case in which scientists gradually and continuously replace the body cells and psychological states of one person with those of another person.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Parfit
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“According to Goodman, they both imply that the maximization of happiness as a moral end overcomes considerations of distributive justice”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Goodman
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By applying these Parfitian arguments, Goodman thus not only buttresses the nonrealist view of personal identity, but also extends the range of the original meaning of anātman, which now incorporates Parfit's reductionist understanding of personal identity.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The anātman doctrine has an original meaning that can be extended by Parfitian reductionism.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While the first level of compassion is directed towards living beings and leans on a distinction between individuals, the second level of compassion encompasses the insight of anātman.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By placing the emphasis on this aspect, it appears that Goodman's interpretation tends to overlook the ways in which the principle of anātman may pose difficulties for ethical theory.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After defining and defending the principle of anātman, Goodman connects this principle to his reading of Buddhist ethics as a consequentialist moral theory.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This philosophical extension, it should be noticed, concentrates on the deconstruction of the person, and (in Buddhist terms) on the way in which beings exist according to ultimate truth.Goodman delves into arguments that support the deconstruction of concrete identity and the validity of ultimate truth.However, by doing so, other aspects are overlooked: the positive reconstruction of the person,”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is at this level that the doctrine of anātman is harnessed in support of Goodman's consequentialist interpretation.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There seems to be a natural overlap between these three aspects: employing the principle of anātman as a means of justifying ethical principles shifts focus to the deconstruction of identity; and placing the emphasis on the deconstruction of identity naturally draws our attention to the perspective of the ultimate truth.But as I argue below, they do not necessarily entail each other.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As we can see, the doctrine of anātman is seen here by Goodman as a principle that advances and supports Buddhist moral theory.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“She would also adopt a reductive attitude towards the moral concept of overall welfare, understanding that this is merely a convenient way of designating an aggregate of individuals and their welfare, including the agent's close connections.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Western Questions, Buddhist Answers
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“commenting on Korsgaard's argument, says that 'Rejecting and abandoning the psychological processes that, for Korsgaard, help to constitute a persisting self may not just be a demand of Buddhism; it may, under certain circumstances, be a demand of consequentialism itself.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Goodman 2009, p. 213 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the same breath, however, he adds that sorites paradoxes played no role whatsoever in the arguments used by Buddhists to support their ontological views”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Siderits 2003, p. 96, n. b
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“What Śāntideva offers us, I would argue, is not merely a version of consequentialism, but a well-thought-out and philosophically quite interesting version.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Goodman 2009, p. 92 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Personal continuity is a process constituted by causal links.What passes in this process, particularly from one lifetime to another, is what Goodman calls 'karmic information'.The passing of karmic information in a causal way accounts for our personal identity over time”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In this way, the principle of anātman assists in the development of moral sentiments.Moral sentiments, in turn, prepare the ground for a consequentialist approach to ethics.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 'Combined Spectrum' thought experiment is one formulation of the sorites paradox, which emerges from objects with unclear boundaries whose precise conceptual category is ambiguous.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I have claimed that the three emphasized aspects overlap, but are not inseparable, and that the threefold presupposition is not inescapable.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And it is precisely because they belong to non-reduced, unified persons that this argument has force and supports the view that we ought to cultivate compassion.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: On the ultimate level, there are no selves or persons.
- Rests on an assumption: On the conventional level, self and other exist and are conceptually distinct.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The verses above provide a rational justification for the practice in the form of a philosophical argument.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Goodman's 2015 defense of consequentialism and his corresponding reading of Śāntideva's arguments rests more substantially on conventional distinctions between persons, though this reading still seems to favor the other two points I enumerated above (the deconstruction of identity and the ethically grounding role of this deconstruction).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Goodman 2015 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A few verses after the aforementioned arguments in favor of altruism, Śāntideva proposes a different approach to the cultivation of altruistic attitude.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the conceptual framework underlying this reading is considerably different.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A clear indication of this is the emergence in recent years of numerous philosophically sophisticated and methodologically conscious studies that intuitively draw on the Parfitian perspective to explicate the theory of anātman.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Conclusion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, it should be noted that although Śāntideva's argument justifies a moral principle, it is not devoid of difficulties: ironically, this argument evokes one wellknown objection against the Buddhist doctrine of anātman.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In my view, these elements are all facets of one methodological choice, one which, when employed in cross-cultural research, instantiates the general problem stated at the beginning of this article.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, it shows that as much as the doctrine of anātman may support the principles and values of Buddhist ethics, it may also challenge some aspects of normative ethics.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: On the ultimate level, there are no selves or persons.
- Rests on an assumption: On the conventional level, self and other exist and are conceptually distinct.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The association of the feeling of 'I' with that particular body is only due to familiarity and unconscious 'practice'.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note, however, that this use is not directly linked to the theoretical lines of the anātman doctrine (although, naturally, persons being conventional entities, the idea is in the background).”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As mentioned above, this constitutes a third way in which Western philosophical characteristics are appropriated for the purpose of shedding light on Buddhist views, alongside the adoption of Western categories and philosophical problems.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Śāntideva preserves this conceptual distinction, but shows how conventional truth can actually advance a Buddhist moral principle.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: On the ultimate level, there are no selves or persons.
- Rests on an assumption: On the conventional level, self and other exist and are conceptually distinct.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interpretive efforts described in this article have left their mark.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this methodology does run the risk of transforming Buddhist ideas in a way that they are only partially present in cross-cultural discussions.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem can now be reframed as follows: while enabling a philosophical fusion, the techniques for interpreting Buddhism through Western conceptual schemes may weaken the autonomy of the Buddhist side and, consequently, undermine the foundations of an impartial conversation.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A recourse to Western-style arguments in cross-cultural dialog can establish a connection between Western and Buddhist thought, but in the process may also obscure the latter.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As we can see, Derek Parfit's philosophy inspired more than a few studies on Buddhist ethics.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Then, in the third verse, Śāntideva proposes that since 'my' identification with that body is merely due to habituation, I can just as well habituate myself to identify in the same way with the bodies of 'others'.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second verse relies on that insight to create a sense of alienation towards one's body, which acts against the intuitive identification we ordinarily have towards it.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The body is itself nothing but a product of components that are not 'me', the sperm and eggs of one's parents.”
§ Buddhism as Reductionism: Personal Identity and Ethics in Parfitian Readings of Buddhist Philosophy; from Steven Collins to the Present > Parfitian Arguments for Buddhist Ethics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
Parfit's early work on personal identity has had a vast influence on Western philosophical debates about personal identity and moral theory.
“Derek Parfit's early work on the metaphysics of persons has had a vast influence onWestern philosophical debates about the nature of personal identity and moral theory.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The works surveyed are representative of contemporary Parfitian-inspired scholarship on Buddhism.
“Examining important Parfitian-inspired studies of Buddhist philosophy, this article points out various ways in which a Parfitian lens shaped, often implicitly, contemporary understandings of the anātman (no-self) doctrine and its relation to Buddhist ethics.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Parfit's reductionist theory and the Buddhist anātman doctrine are sufficiently comparable for the comparison to be philosophically fruitful.
“While I am sympathetic to the analogies between Parfit's reductionist theory and Buddhist philosophy, my intention in what follows is to explore the ways in which the Parfitian perspective shapes, often implicitly, contemporary philosophical understandings of the doctrine of anātman (noself) and, specifically, this doctrine's relation to Buddhist moral theory.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Parfitian categories are Western theoretical categories external to Buddhist texts.
“In Parfitian-inspired readings, the anātman doctrine, understood as a form of reductionism, has been used for such cross-cultural endeavors, thereby adding a second layer (alongside the Western theoretical categories) to the method of explicating Buddhist views in reference to Western conceptual frameworks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is an autonomous and authentic Buddhist viewpoint that a cross-cultural method may or may not permit.
“One question this technique poses, therefore, concerns the degree to which this cross-cultural method permits for an autonomous and authentic depiction of the Buddhist viewpoint.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The anātman doctrine has an original meaning that can be extended by Parfitian reductionism.
“Goodman thus not only buttresses the nonrealist view of personal identity, but also extends the range of the original meaning of anātman, which now incorporates Parfit's reductionist understanding of personal identity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The critical history of Indological scholarship is correct that seeking Western philosophical answers in Asian literature tends to introduce external agendas.
“According to the critical history of Indological scholarship, the exercise of looking for answers to Western philosophical questions in Asian literature tends to involve the introduction of external agendas into the texts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
On the ultimate level, there are no selves or persons.
“Even though there are no selves or persons on the ultimate level, self and other exist according to conventional truth, and are conceptually distinct from one another.”
The paper relies on this without support.
On the conventional level, self and other exist and are conceptually distinct.
“Even though there are no selves or persons on the ultimate level, self and other exist according to conventional truth, and are conceptually distinct from one another.”
Citations
Cites
Sources of the self: the making of the modern identity
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3278 · Cited by 7,144
Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity
Hamlyn, D., & Taylor, C. T. (1990) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2072870 · Cited by 6,662
Parfit, D. (1986) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/019824908x.001.0001 · Cited by 5,803
Parfit, D. (1971) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2184309 · Cited by 766
Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Theravada Buddhism
Collins, S. (1982) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511621499 · Cited by 572
Personal identity and the unity of agency: A Kantian response to Parfit
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174503.014 · Cited by 395
(2003) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 269
Engaging Buddhism: Why It Matters to Philosophy
Garfield, J. L. (2015) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190204334.001.0001 · Cited by 238
Experiences, Subjects, and Conceptual Schemes
Parfit, D. (1999) · Philosophical Topics · doi:10.5840/philtopics1999261/245 · Cited by 185
Ganeri, J. (2007) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199202416.001.0001 · Cited by 148
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Bastow, D. (1986). Self-construction in Buddhism. Ratio, 28(2), 97–113.
- Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Taber, J. (2006). On borrowing from the Indian philosopher’s toolbox: Comments on mark Siderits, Personal Identity and Buddhist Philosophy. APA Newsletter on Asian and Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophy, 6(1), 7–12.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Siderits, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.001.0001 · Cited by 16
Coseru, C. (2020) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429488450-11 · Cited by 2
Siderits, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.003.0002
Siderits, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.003.0009
Siderits, M. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.003.0008
Anti-Realisms Local and Global
Siderits, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.003.0010
Siderits, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.003.0003
Siderits, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.003.0001
Siderits, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.003.0007
Siderits, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.003.0004
Siderits, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.003.0006
Siderits, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.003.0005
Coseru, C. (2023) · Sophia studies in cross-cultural philosophy of traditions and cultures · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-13995-6_3
Siderits, M. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.002.0004
Abbreviations (with translations when available)
Siderits, M. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197606902.002.0006
Metadata
- Authors
- Hanner, O.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hanner, Oren
- ORCID
- Hanner, Oren
- Venue
- Sophia
- Published
- 2018-06
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 211-231
- ISSN
- 0038-1527 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-930X
- OpenAlex
- W2887504914
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 39.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- philarchive.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Sophia (publishedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
- American Council of Learned Societies
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Keywords
- Derek Parfit, Buddhist philosophy, personal identity, reductionism, anatman, Buddhist ethics, metaphysics of the person, comparative philosophy, cosmopolitanism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-04, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-04 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
