Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social identity versus personal identity
Personal identity and Self Identity
Essays on David Hume on personal identity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social identity versus personal identity
Personal identity is a persistent debate which plays a great role in modern philosophy, it centres around the concept of a consistent and continuous concept of self, which we as individuals identify with, it is the question of “what constitutes the persistence of personhood over time?” Hume’s theory of personal identity suggests that the term “self” is coined in a misleading manner, which assumes it to be an independent concept. His theory on personal identity, or namely the lack of it, argues that there is no concept of a self only a culmination of rapid successive perceptions. Hume develops this idea in his book Treatise, where he attempts to answer the question of what a personal identity is through criticism and analysis of the different …show more content…
Specifically, his account does contradict itself, a fact that he does acknowledge. The contradiction occurs in terms of the origin of his idea that perceptions are distinct entities. Hume seems to be unable to prevent himself from utilising the common belief, which he argues against, namely that there are connections between distinct individual perceptions, connection which are not observable or traceable through his method of introspection. This is further supported by the fact that, even though Hume tries to highlight the idea that we have no perception of abstract concepts such as identity, he still utilises terms such as, mind, soul and self, in the text, in order to describe instance that fall outside of the realm of perceptions. It seems despite Hume’s attempts, concepts of these entities are utilised in creating a semblance of connection amongst perceptions in terms of identity. Although one could defend Hume’s theory by approaching it as an analysis of the mind instead of a refusal of its existence, because Hume’s theory presents us with the concept of “bundled perceptions” which can be understood as the components of the conceptual mind, this would mean that Hume is not refusing to acknowledge the existence of a mind fully, but only the philosophical idea that the mind is mental substance.
The idea of the mind being a mental substance is advocated for by René Descartes who proposed that human nature exists in duality, through mental and physical substances. Descartes argues that by assuming that identity and the mind are of the mental substance, changes to the physical substance would not interfere with their continued and uninterrupted existence, but as has been previously mentioned the text Hume disagrees with this idea and provides arguments which refute
The story of Clive actually provides evidence to Hume’s claim that consistency is not present throughout life. Hume came to this conclusion through the perceptions he acquires by the scenes, but Clive’s experience is much more evident. He is literally starting from scratch every time he blinks, therefor, he never remains who he once was. This vivid transition exaggerates Hume’s point that all people have been influenced extensively at all moments of their lives while awake and are continuously taking on a new form of “entity” so to speak. Despite the fact that Hume’s outlook on who a person is corresponds with Clive, I have quite different views on which philosophical historian manifest my idea of what personal identity
In this paper I offer an explication of John Perry’s dialogue on the problem of personal identity, and my evaluation of the strongest account of personal identity between the body, mind, and soul. In this paper I will argue that the strongest account of personal identity is that a person can be identified by their soul. By having the sameness of soul you will then be able to solve the problem of personal identity. Your soul is the foundation of whom you are and by definition, personal identity means “The persistent and continuous unity of the individual person normally attested by continuity of memory with present consciousness.” And without your soul memory could not exist.
The question of personal identity is very intuitive, yet very difficult to define. Essentially, what makes you, you? John Locke was one philosopher who attempted to answer this question. He proposed a psychological theory to define personal identity. His theory does have some merit, but it is not a correct definition of personal identity, since there are some counter-examples that cannot be accounted for. My argument will prove that Locke’s theory of personal identity is false.
middle of paper ... ... The operations of our own mind have created this idea of God, which rebuts Descartes’ argument that we have knowledge of the external world because of God. Descartes would argue that Humes’ idea of God is natural and never derived from impressions. Hume’ consequently has the better argument, claiming that the idea of God is actually based on ideas of perfection and infinity is inferred from the ideas of imperfection and finitude.
In his 1971 paper “Personal Identity”, Derek Parfit posits that it is possible and indeed desirable to free important questions from presuppositions about personal identity without losing all that matter. In working out how to do so, Parfit comes to the conclusion that “the question of identity has no importance” (Parfit, 1971, p. 4.2:3). In this essay, I will attempt to show that Parfit’s thesis is a valid one, with positive implications for human behaviour. The first section of the essay will examine the thesis in further detail, and the second will assess how Parfit’s claims fare in the face of criticism. Problems of personal identity generally involve questions about what makes one the person one is and what it takes for the same person to exist at separate times (Olson, 2010).
Personal identity, in the context of philosophy, does not attempt to address clichéd, qualitative questions of what makes us us. Instead, personal identity refers to numerical identity or sameness over time. For example, identical twins appear to be exactly alike, but their qualitative likeness in appearance does not make them the same person; each twin, instead, has one and only one identity – a numerical identity. As such, philosophers studying personal identity focus on questions of what has to persist for an individual to keep his or her numerical identity over time and of what the pronoun “I” refers to when an individual uses it. Over the years, theories of personal identity have been established to answer these very questions, but the
This change does not change a person’s identity. Hume’s “Bundle Theory” defines personal identity as perceptions.
What is personal identity? This question has been asked and debated by philosophers for centuries. The problem of personal identity is determining what conditions and qualities are necessary and sufficient for a person to exist as the same being at one time as another. Some think personal identity is physical, taking a materialistic perspective believing that bodily continuity or physicality is what makes a person a person with the view that even mental things are caused by some kind of physical occurrence. Others take a more idealist approach with the belief that mental continuity is the sole factor in establishing personal identity holding that physical things are just reflections of the mind. One more perspective on personal identity and the one I will attempt to explain and defend in this paper is that personal identity requires both physical and psychological continuity; my argument is as follows:
In conclusion, I believe that Hume thinks that reason, while not completely useless, is not the driving force of moral motivation. Reasons are a means to sentiments, which in turn are a means to morality, but without reasons there can be still sentiments. There can still be beauty. Reasons can not lie as the foundation of morality because they can only be true or false. It can not be because of truth or falsity that I find a particular song to be joyful. I find that song to be joyful because of the sentiments it stirs inside my mind. Reasons can not be a foundation because they do not explain human emotions or sentiments, only statements. And truth statements, no matter what their intentions or interpretations, can not exist in morality because of the aforementioned considerations.
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.
The problem of personal identity is difficult to solve, especially since there is ambiguity in the terms. Identity may mean the same person or how one sees oneself. Anyhow, philosophers wish to assess this issue and find a suitable explanation, one motivation being responsibility. Humans will hold others responsible for acts such as murder, theft, and fraud. However, the person who will face the consequences must be the one who truly committed the wrongful act. A second motivation is interest in the future. An individual may become concerned or excited for an event that will occur in the future. Surely, these emotions entail that they will be the same person once that event occurs. The last motivation for resolving personal identity is immortality; basically, what will connect a person to whatever lives on after their physical death. Something can be identical in two ways: quantitatively or qualitatively. To be quantitatively identical is to be numerically identical, and to be qualitatively identical is to share exact qualities. There are two criterions on which personal identity is based, but the most important is the metaphysical criterion, which attempts to explain “being” or existence, without the necessity of physical evidence ...
Hume believes that there is no concept of self. That each moment we are a new being since nothing is constant from one moment to the next. There is no continuous “I” that is unchanging from one moment to the next. That self is a bundle of perceptions and emotions there is nothing that forms a self-impression which is essential to have an idea of one self. The mind is made up of a processions of perceptions.
The concept of personal identity is a central philosophical component to a debate to which many theorists have contributed their theories to. One of the most prominent theories on personal identities was by John Locke, one of the influential theorist in the 17th century.
...have struggled with the nature of human beings, especially with the concept of “self”. What Plato called “soul, Descartes named the “mind”, while Hume used the term “self”. This self, often visible during hardships, is what one can be certain of, whose existence is undoubtable. Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am” concept of transcendental self with just the conscious mind is too simplistic to capture the whole of one’s self. Similarly, the empirical self’s idea of brain in charge of one’s self also shows a narrow perspective. Hume’s bundle theory seeks to provide the distinction by claiming that a self is merely a habitual way of discussing certain perceptions. Although the idea of self is well established, philosophical insight still sees that there is no clear presentation of essential self and thus fails to prove that the true, essential self really exists.
Self-identity is one of the main themes of philosophy throughout its history. In general, “self-identity” is a term that means thoughts or feelings with which you distinguish you from others, and we use the term in ordinary conversation without a solid concept of “self-identity”. However, arguing about self-identity philosophically, there arise many questions: whether there is any essence of yourself, whether you are the same person as you when you were a baby, whether memory or experience makes you, and what is “self-identity.” To solve these questions, many philosophers have been arguing the topic “self identity” for so long.