hmm... i find that certain strategies could do more harm thaj good. I am very excited to learn more about what this author thinks. What if, for example, kent were to be given flashcards "reminding" him of his past (which he has no memory of or attachment to). It is almost like he would carry the ghost of a stranger's identity. This isnt to say strategies to make amnesiatic people's live's easier should be cut out completely, but it can get quite slippery.

Subjective time typically implies something internal. Kent's amnesia suggests that instead, because subjective time remains in tact, it is anchored in an external (to the self) and formal network. Moreover, the framework which survives is not just as subjective time, but as syntax and embodied habits. Largely, this implies there is something objective and external to subjectivity itself.

It is not just that we reflect on our past actions, our history is continuously rewritten as we enter new stages of our life. I think the scariest implication of this is that amnesiatic patients dont even remember the losing of their past itself. Maybe it is that these patients aren't just damaged, nor are they inhuman. More radically, they start over.

Means he can recall memories from distant past (adolescence and childhood) but cannot recall memories leading up to the injury.

Back to my comment on totality. this is an expression of a sort of harmonious totality of things... does contemporary science continue to back up this kind of totality?

I know its unrelated but like no one is on here so whatever. This theory was promoted as official state doctrine of the soviet union (darwin evolutionary theory was rejected and deemed bourgeois).

This word totality stuck out to me. There are different versions of totality: one that supposes harmonious interconnectedness of things (which may be ultimately inacessible to humans). It could also be that this totality itself is incomplete and under construction (as humans acecss it). I wonder if our understanding of science can help us better know what is meant by totality.

By leaving this "sense" open it implies that philosophers are only trying to define what are "things" and what are the "relationships of things." In a strange way, there is a certain humbleness to this task.