The following text discusses personal identity.
Reductionists about personal identity hold that identity facts reduce to psychological or physical continuity relations without a separately existing self. Non-reductionists maintain that persons are ontologically primitive entities not analyzable in other terms. The debate connects to practical questions: Do reductionist views undermine our reasons for special concern about future selves? Parfit famously argued that identity is "not what matters"—what matters is psychological continuity, which admits of degrees and branching.
What is the main purpose of the text?
To explain competing views of personal identity and connect them to practical implications
To provide meditation techniques for exploring the sense of self
To argue definitively that personal identity is an illusion
To compare Western and Eastern concepts of selfhood
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the best answer. The text explains reductionist vs. non-reductionist views and connects them to practical implications (concern for future selves, Parfit's argument).
- Evidence: The text explains reductionism: "identity facts reduce to psychological..." It explains non-reductionism: "persons are ontologically primitive." It connects to practice: "The debate connects to practical questions... Parfit famously argued..."
- Reasoning: The passage contrasts two metaphysical views and shows how they change how we care about our future.
- Conclusion: The purpose is to explain views and connect to implications.
💡 Strategy: Summarize: Am I a soul or a bundle? (Views) -> Does it matter for my future? (Implications).
Choice B is incorrect because meditation isn't discussed. Choice C is incorrect because illusion isn't argued. Choice D is incorrect because cultural comparison isn't made.