{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016073478760045924, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.055555555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Does Olson’s animalism put end to personal identity debate?

Theory of Eric Olson’s animalism is evaluated in the article in relation to his debate with the proponents of psychological approach to personal identity problem. Olson aims to show the irrelevance of psychology to the issue and to finish the debate by means of introducing the fetus problem. It is argued that theory of animalism has its certain strong points in comparison with Lynne Baker’s constitution view and Jeff McMahan’s embodied part approach; it does not contain any contradictions and rests on few theoretical assumptions. Nevertheless, it is claimed that animalism does not finish the debate, because it does not take into consideration that a person has a strong self-concern about her future. So the essential part of the general personal identity problem is simply ignored by Olson’s animalism