Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Soul theory of personal identity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Soul theory of personal identity
1)Bodily Substance is the theory of identity that something is entirely material. Bodily Continuity is physical but also states that the body is always changing but we are the same. Psychological Continuity is the theory based on the idea that memory makes us who we are, such as the example of the Boy, Officer, and General we discussed in class. John Lockes theory on personal identity supports Psychological Continuity. As stated by Locke “I am for what I did the last moment” (Hallman 17). In Lockes theory he argues for psychological continuity by saying “Since personal identity reaches no further then consciousness reaches, a pre-existent spirit, having continuous so many ages in a state of silence, would make different persons” (Hallman …show more content…
Locke is a supporter that identity is a psychological thing rather then physical. While on the other hand Descartes believes identity is broken into two different categories which are body and soul. They are the same in the case that Descartes believes that thinking is found in the soul which is tied together to Lockes associating identity to a thinking mental state. They are different in the aspect Descartes believes that identity is also physical instead of just psychological. Desecrates believes the body and soul need each other like a “Pilot in his ship” (Hallman 50). He explains how the soul is “Joined to the body” (Hallman 48) at the pineal gland. His conclusion is the soul uses the body until the body dies and the soul moves on. To support Lockes theory of strictly psychological continuity he explains, even though a tiny finger is cut off does not mean the persons identity and consciousness goes along with it. Lastly he supports his theory by saying as time goes on “We lose sight of our past selves” (Hallman 14), Which supports that identity is a mental state. I believe Locke proves a better argument. I feel this way because Descartes feels a a spirit sends signals to a gland in a persons brain that determines what they do. I feel Locke proves his point well, that the mind is always changing and the identity is made up of a psychological mental
John Locke, Rousseau, and Napoleon all have very different views on what would make a good society. Locke uses a democracy/republican type view that many countries still model after today. Locke’s view on a happy society is the most open and kind to its people, out of the three. Rousseau takes the complete opposite stance from Locke in thinking a more dictatorship government would be what is best for society as a whole as what is good for one person is good for one’s society. Napoleon plays by his own rules with telling people he will follow Lockean like views only to really want to be an absolutist government under his own power. However, all of their ideas would work for a given society so long as they had a set of laws in place and citizens
In defining mind and matter, Descartes is simultaneously equating the mind with the soul whilst proving it to be distinct from the body and matter. Many philosophers of mind have attempted to address the mind-body problem, proving the relationship between the above two elements. Famously addressed by Descartes, he explored the relationship between consciousness and the brain as he provided several arguments in defence to his stance to the explanation of the union between the mind (or soul) and the body. One of which is the argument from indivisibility:
One of the ways in which Descartes attempts to prove that the mind is distinct from the body is through his claim that the mind occupies no physical space and is an entity with which people think, while the body is a physical entity and cannot serve as a mechanism for thought. [1]
The turmoil of the 1600's and the desire for more fair forms of government combined to set the stage for new ideas about sovereignty. Locke wrote many influential political pieces, such as The Second Treatise of Government, which included the proposal for a legislative branch of government that would be selected by the people. Rousseau supported a direct form of democracy in which the people control the sovereignty. (how would the people control the sovereignty??) Sovereignty is the supremacy or authority of rule. Locke and Rousseau both bring up valid points about how a government should be divided and how sovereignty should be addressed.
In the Sixth Meditation, Descartes makes a point that there is a distinction between mind and body. It is in Meditation Two when Descartes believes he has shown the mind to be better known than the body. In Meditation Six, however, he goes on to claim that, as he knows his mind and knows clearly and distinctly that its essence consists purely of thought. Also, that bodies' essences consist purely of extension, and that he can conceive of his mind and body as existing separately. By the power of God, anything that can be clearly and distinctly conceived of as existing separately from something else can be created as existing separately. However, Descartes claims that the mind and body have been created separated without good reason. This point is not shown clearly, and further, although I can conceive of my own mind existing independently of my body, it does not necessarily exist as so.
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other. Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience.
Once Descartes recognizes the indubitable truth that he exists, he then attempts to further his knowledge by discovering the type of thing that he is. Trying to understand what he is, Descartes recalls Aristotle's definition of a human as a rational animal. This is unsatisfactory since this requires investigation into the notions of "rational" and "animal". Continuing his quest for identity, he recalls a more general view he previously had of his identity, which is that he is composed of both body and soul. According to classical philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, the key attributes of the soul involve eating, movement, and sensation. He can't claim to h...
These premises, both of which are true, support the conclusion of this argument. The first premise states that bodily continuity is required for the function of mental continuity; this is of course true as all mental activity is generated within the brain whose livelihood relies on adequate operation of the body. Additionally, in the second premise it is noted that mental continuity is necessary in defining personal identity. Mental continuity as it relates to personal identity is a combination of memory and consciousness. Memo...
Using Strawson’s examination as a guide to Descartes philosophy,i have tried to show how the two issues, of individuation and identity threaten to destroy Descartes’ philosophy of mind-body dualism.
Personal identity examines what makes a person at one time identical with a person at another. Many philosophers believe we are always changing and therefore, we cannot have a persisting identity if we are different from one moment to the next. However, many philosophers believe there is some important feature that determines a person’s identity and keeps it persistent. For John Locke, this important feature is memory, and I agree. Memory is the most important feature in determining a person’s identity as memory is the necessary and sufficient condition of personal identity.
In conclusion, Descartes and Hume believe that one finds the truth through the use of one’s senses. Even though they may be perceived differently and used in memory in different forms. Hume believes that there is no such thing as self. One is ever changing and different in each individual moment in time. While Descartes argues that one is built off of the past and the body and the mind are one. That the body and mind act in sync with one another, whatever the body does the mind directs or understands the task at
John Locke and Socrates both have two distinctive and compelling arguments about what the social contract is. While government’s today extract ideas from both theories of the social contract, it’s is hard to determine which is the just and appropriate. While there is little comparison between the two theories other than fact that there must be a relationship between the government and the people for a society to exist, there are several opposing ideas in these arguments. First, the Socrates idea of an implicit social contract versus Locke’s explicit social contract. Secondly, Socrates believes laws make the society and in contrast, Locke believes society makes the law. Finally, Socrates believes the very few educated persons or minority
Descartes studied the notions of truth, belief, and justification. His pursuit was to find the truth with certain knowledge that he acquired. Descartes’s believes that our mind and body are separate; therefore he could not trust his own senses. In order to reconstruct his knowledge to the point were there was no doubt he must only trust clear and distinct ideas. He argues that the mind is immaterial and the body is material, which he states as dualism and are independent substances. He states that the only thing to be trusted is the mind since it is what defines that “I” exist. Because we can’t trust or senses then is the body part of a dream or an illusion? We are humans and what completes us is our mind and body together as one. Our senses
He does not rely on the religious system views that much. The big question for Locke is this: How do we know that a testimony, “Which claims to be from God, is in fact from God?” (IV 16.14). He was not sure if God existence was truthful, or was it someone making things up.in other words, we do not know exactly if when someone claim about God is it truthful or not, it is there a ways to figure this out, religious person might just be making false accusations. This why the reason he does not quite mention religion throughout his essay. On the other hand, when Descartes talks about the idea of God’s existence he seems to imply that we are all born with the thought of God in our mind. In order to proof the existence of God, Descartes begins to classifying the truth or false ideas in his minds he formed. Descartes says, “I had of many other things outside myself, as of the sky, the earth, light, I was not much at loss to know whence they came, which seemed to make them superior to me” (Page 185). He was so drawn about question pour it out his minds. When reading further the idea of God was perfection and there was no room for error. God is the cause for the ideas within me, this is reason to believe that God exist, Descartes says. The idea of human beings line of thought about God it cannot occur, unless
They both divide their metaphysics and epistemology into two sections. Descartes explains his in two meditations while Locke explains his in two qualities. They both describe how the mind plays a very important part in describing what is real. Of course the mind is a main factor for humans to describe what is real and how we receive our knowledge but they both explain their theories in different ways. Descartes explains that our main source of knowledge comes from our sense perception. In his theory we have to doubt our perceptions and ideas. In his view nothing is certain but us, he makes it simple by saying “I think therefore I am. He uses the immaterial mind to explain the existence of things. Locke on the other hand believes that our main source of knowledge is sensory experience. Locke provides strong evidence of his theory but his theory is known as one of the most confusing in his work. He views that without experience or reason, we have to question our reality and the external world we live in. Through experience comes sensation and reflection and that is how we know what is real because all ideas to form complex ideas come from those two