Open Individualism — Daniel Kolak

An icebreaker

A philosopher argues that there's only one subject having every experience anyone has ever had, and that this shows up in thought experiments about splitting or fusing minds. Other philosophers built similar arguments before him and directly against him.

Ask one of these · tap to take it

What actually makes you the same person you were yesterday?
If a mind could split in two, which half would be you?
Would believing everyone shares one subject change how you treat people?
Is a thought experiment about splitting minds evidence, or just a puzzle?

copy the questions

Worth knowing · 1 of 5

What does this view actually claim?

It holds that there is only one numerically identical subject of experience, and every conscious being is that same subject, appearing to itself as many separate people. It's offered as a metaphysical claim about identity, not a mystical feeling.

Worth knowing · 2 of 5

Who coined the term and in what book?

A philosophy professor coined 'open individualism' in a 2004 book that also named two alternatives: closed individualism, the ordinary view that you're one continuous person, and empty individualism, where identity is just a series of disconnected moments.

Worth knowing · 3 of 5

What kind of argument is used to support it?

Thought experiments about a mind splitting into two people, or two minds merging into one, are used to argue that ordinary personal identity can't survive such cases intact, pushing toward either an empty or an open view of what a self is.

Worth knowing · 4 of 5

Did anyone argue for something similar before this book?

Yes. A philosopher at University College London had independently defended a closely related position, often called universalism, arguing that the boundary between one conscious being and another is a matter of perspective rather than a hard metaphysical fact.

Worth knowing · 5 of 5

What's the main alternative view it argues against?

A highly influential philosopher argued instead that personal identity reduces to psychological continuity and connectedness, and that identity itself isn't what ultimately matters. Open individualism's author built his framework explicitly in response to that reductionist account.

Words to know

Open individualismThe view that one single subject underlies every conscious being's experience, though each appears separate to itself.

Closed individualismThe common-sense view that a person is one continuous, distinct subject from birth to death.

Empty individualismThe view that personal identity is reduced to a series of momentary, disconnected time-slices with no deeper continuity.

More words

Psychological continuityThe chain of overlapping memory, personality, and intention that reductionist theories use to define identity over time.

A voice · 1 of 4

Daniel Kolak · Philosopher who named and developed the theory

In his 2004 book, he argued from thought experiments about splitting and merging minds that personal identity is best understood as one subject shared by every conscious being, naming this position open individualism against two rival views he also defined.

A voice · 2 of 4

Arnold Zuboff · Philosopher who independently argued a related view

In papers and talks developing a position he called universalism, he argued that the felt separation between one conscious being and another is a matter of perspective rather than a fixed metaphysical boundary, reaching a conclusion close to open individualism by a separate route.

A voice · 3 of 4

Derek Parfit · Philosopher whose theory the book argues against

In 'Reasons and Persons' (1984), he argued that personal identity reduces to psychological continuity and connectedness, and that strict identity is not what fundamentally matters in survival, a reductionist position Kolak's book classified as empty individualism and built its own view against.

A voice · 4 of 4

Thomas Nagel · Philosopher who assessed a related defense

Writing on a related defense of the position in 2024, he called its central claim "incredible, even outrageous," while judging it argued carefully enough that it shouldn't simply be dismissed.

A line to leave them with

One subject, or none that lasts. Either way, the person you feel like is being questioned.