The topic indicated in the title of the article will be discussed a little later. First, you need to think about the story, the main character of which was Rachel Dolezal. The former president of Spokane, Washington, and the head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, is widely believed to be a fraud. Others believe Dolezal is no different from Caitlyn Jenner, the 65-year-old woman who until recently was known as Bruce Jenner and was a man. The only difference between these two people is how willing the society is to accept what they offer it.
Dolezal's story
When the truth about Dolezal was revealed, both sides argued with each other very passionately and actively. However, the most interesting aspect of this scandal was how angry and passionate humanity turned out to be in relation to the strange story of "transracial" one woman. Cheaters and cheaters wear a variety of masks to show themselves on a side that will benefit them, and Dolezal chose a specific racial identity for herself to sue Howard University, and then another to begin her career in academia. If I may say so, this is the story of a racial con artist who literally has two faces. But why is duplicity so morally blatant when it comes to race?
Is she right?
Those people who say that Dolezal is to blame for appropriating someone else's identity may be right. And her deception may in fact be engendered by the unquestioning privileges of white people. However, these accusations are based on a common concept of personal identity, which can turn out to be false and at the same time cause more negative emotions about one's own death than it should be.
Promotional video:
Parfit and its judgments
Derek Parfit, a philosopher from Oxford, thinks that people's self-image is based on a fundamental error. The natural way that people interpret their own identity is a coherent, deep and fairly stable set of vital qualities that persist over the years. So when you look at your baby photos, you can interpret certain facial expressions as a manifestation of a particular character trait that you currently have, or even as a manifestation of your spirit. Dolezal claims she used brown, not peach, chalk when she painted herself as a child. This is the whole point of this theory.
Or, for example, when you imagine yourself after a certain period of time (from ten to forty years), a rather definite and concrete image of how you will look appears in your head - this is a person who has experienced a number of new ones, but so far experiences unknown to you. The key in imagining “oneself” in the present versus “oneself” in the past or future is to understand that all of these individuals are one. You are yourself throughout your life. You will go through inevitable difficulties and trials, you may even have a transformational experience, but you will still remain yourself from start to finish.
Features of the theory of Parfit
Parfit considers this approach to be wrong. Your personalities do not have to be related to each other. At two, twenty, forty and ninety-five years old, you can have certain psychological connections (memories, desires, preferences, inclinations) and you can safely say that your personalities are related to each other. But given the fact that physical changes in the body can occur, memory problems and various reorientations can occur, it makes no sense to think of yourself as one and the same person moving through time. This is a number of more or less related personalities, and not one specific person.
How to relate to this story?
Suppose that Dolezal is completely honest in her claims that she feels like a black person and did not use this move solely for profit or any benefit. What if she actually feels "black"? Why shouldn't the various experiences in her life, such as her four black siblings and her black ex-husband, be allowed to lead her to identify with a black person? Why are her actions evaluated from a genetic point of view? Doesn't this seem strange in an era when race is perceived not as a biological fact, but as a social image? This article is not intended to criticize Dolezal for who she feels, but only for a public act of deception (if it really took place), but this is a completely different story. It's time to keep the promise and get back to the headline. How can Parfit's concept of personal identification reduce the fear of death?
Parfit and attitude to life
Parfit acknowledges that some people can be discouraged and upset by admitting that someone has a strong spirit. However, Parfit himself considers such a thought "liberating and comforting." He writes: “Previously, I was imprisoned in myself. My life seemed to me like a glass tunnel, through which I moved faster and faster every year, and at the end of this tunnel there was only darkness. " But after a long philosophical reflection, everything changed: “When I changed my views, the walls of the glass tunnel suddenly disappeared. I live in the open air. Naturally, there is still a difference between my life and the lives of other people. But it is getting smaller. Other people are getting closer. I am less concerned about my future life and more interested in the lives of others."
Parfit and attitude to death
How does Parfit view death now? He writes that, in accordance with his previous views, he was much more concerned about his imminent death. After his death, there would be no man left on Earth who would be him. But now he can look at this fact from a different point of view. Although there will be many experiences later in his life, none of them will be the same as now. As a result, the death of a particular person is simply a lack of connection with his future impressions. If you look at the problem from this point of view, then death no longer seems terrible, and there is no point in being so afraid of it.
Marina Ilyushenko