ABSTRACT
In Chapter 3, I argued that we must distinguish between several questions commonly discussed under the heading of “personal identity.” The fi rst aim of this chapter is to present further arguments for the need to distinguish between questions 1-6. This will be done in section 1 by showing how the distinction between these different questions makes sense of several contexts in which questions of identity come up. The other aim of the chapter is to give further support for the commitment criterion. First, section 1 will reveal how the commitment criterion offers the proper framework for understanding identity in the different contexts under discussion and how it thus does justice to the distinctions between questions 1-6 (condition of adequacy 4). Second, by comparing the commitment criterion with some other approaches, it will be shown more generally how the commitment criterion offers the right framework for answering questions 1-6 (section 2). The commitment criterion is a development of the authorial correlate theory. So in talking about the commitment criterion I shall often be drawing on elements made explicit by the authorial correlate theory. However, because the commitment criterion is an account of diachronic identity, I do not dwell in this chapter upon contexts in which questions of individuation arise. This is the subject of Part III.
