I argue that Parfit successfully expresses his point on personal identity where survival does not have to be connected to identity as long as there is psychological continuity. Parfit begins arguing his point by using Wiggins’ case where your brain is divided in two and put into separate bodies and Parfit asks if the person survives. He discusses three possibilities where you do not survive, you survive as one of the people or you survive as both of the people. Dividing a person’s brain does not always lead to death because people can live with half of their brain. Theoretically a person can survive for the first two possibilities but for the third possibility, how can a person survive in two different bodies? The result is that the two people share a past self even though they are different from each other.…show more content… Parfit argues that for the three possibilities, everyone survives but they do not have a personal identity because the original person does not have a relationship in terms of identity to the other people but has a relationship in terms of survival so it is not one-one. Then Parfit argues that there is a relationship in terms of survival but only to a small degree where he explains this in the fusion case. Fusion is not a case for identity because if you fuse with another person, it is obvious that parts of you will be lost but there is parts of you that will survive the fusion which is why survival has only a small degree. If identity is not one-one then the only thing that is important in relation to the small degree of survival is psychological continuity where your past characteristics, personality and beliefs are still connected to you through your memories which allows you to continue
