I find the handouts very helpful for understanding the material. But I have to raise another question. I was not compelled by the issues raised with the Buddhist concept of Nirvana in the handout titled "The Afterlife and Personal Identity: Hinduism and Buddhism." Would a person without desire still be a person? Maybe not. But I'm not convinced by the arguments in the handout.

"Thought, problem solving, growing and developing, expressing emotions, having relationships and striving towards goals
all seem to be essential characteristics of a human person. If the individual in Nirvana lacked these characteristics, I don't see how she (it?) could be considered a person."

The examples that came to my mind at this point were infants, comatose patients and those suffering from mental diseases and developmental disabilities. The handout compares one who is experiencing Nirvana to a person in a hospital bed being pumped with morphine.

Aren't these people still people? Don't we feel worse when we see an infant or a severely handicapped person suffer? Why do we feel this way towards people whose humanity is so questionable?

One might say that we often feel protective of animals. But by and large, we only feel protective towards animals with human characteristics. The more domesticated an animal is, or the more it looks like a human, the more we care for it. Few people would object to squashing a bug but many would object to killing anything with big, cute eyes. The easier it is for us to anthropomorphize, the more compassion we have for it. The more we can "humanize" anything, the more we care for it.

So, if we're going to view infants and those in persistent vegetative states as people worthy of our protection, why not one who is experiencing Nirvana?

Also, is the absence of desire and the presence of bliss enough to make someone an unperson? If person-desires+bliss=unperson, then personality=desires-bliss. To put it in words, personality consists of desires and the absence of bliss. Is this an acceptable definition for personality?

About desire: When I was a kid, I desired to throw things. As I grew older, through training, I have advanced beyond that desire. I conceptualize being desireless as extending my attitudes towards throwing things to all facets of my existence.

About bliss: When I sit on the beach with my girlfriend, I am filled with bliss and I can think of very little that I desire. I doubt that is comparable to Nirvana, but it does illustrate the absence of desires and presence of bliss does not strip one of one's personhood. When I sit on the beach, I am very much a person. I love and I am loved although I have nothing on my mind other than the breath in my lungs. And sometimes not even that. Perhaps an absence of desire merely allows one to concentrate on other aspects of one's personality, such as bliss.