Locke first outlined his view of personal identity in Chapter XXVII of book II in ‘An Essay concerning Human Understanding’ however faced a number of criticisms. This essay will assess how convincing John Locke’s account of personal identity is, whilst analyzing Reid and Berkeley’s criticisms of his view. Locke’s psychological account of personal identity is not a persuasive one due to the inconsistencies that are highlighted by Reid and Berkeley and I will defend this view in this essay. Locke’s account of personal identity leads to a number of contradictions which he attempts to respond to, however whilst barely addressing the criticisms he faces, his responses are also unsuccessful as both Reid and Berkeley counter each response further. …show more content…
Consciousness is seemingly always during the present and memory, a past entity. However, Locke responds to Reid and claims that one can have a memory of something without having consciousness of that memory. Reid continues to argue that identity must be something that stays exactly the same over time, however, our consciousness is in a state of constant fluctuation, thus our personal identity would be endlessly changing. Locke counters Reid, however, arguing that our consciousness is constantly changing and that we could still be very much conscious when we are sleeping. Furthermore, our personal identity is not restricted by our consciousness however, our capability to be conscious of former memories. Although Locke successfully responds to Reid’s first criticisms, Reid presents the analogy of the brave officer which highlights key contradictions that effectively subvert Locke’s account of personal …show more content…
Reid’s argument is that a young boy (p1) could be thrashed for a minor offence (t1), and later become a brave officer (p2) who becomes decorated for bravery on the battlefield (t2). Lastly, we have an aged general (p3), who looks back on his career (t3). The brave officer does remember the time he was thrashed for the minor offence thus p2 at t2 remembers being p1 at t1, Locke affirms that p1=p2. In addition to this the general remembers his exploits on the battlefield, thus p2=p3. However, the general does not remember being punished for a minor offense and p3 at t3 does not remember being p1 at t1 thus we must conclude that p1 is not p3. However we must conclude that identity is a transitive relation, thereby if A is identical to B, and B is identical to C, then A must be identical to C. Therefore, according to Locke’s theory the general both is and isn't identical to the young boy. Locke attempts to respond to Reid, arguing that one's consciousness extends back from the brave officer to the young boy, and thus the general would, in fact, be identical to the boy, due to ‘ancestral relation’ However, although Locke’s response may seem successful, Reid’s criticism could be slightly modified in order the create more problems for Locke. If we were to imagine the general to be senile, so he remembers being the young boy, however doe snot have any recent memories so does not
Personal identity is a nonphysical structure and cannot be found within the soul or in the body. Due to the separation between consciousness and body, Locke proclaims that physical injuries do not influence who somebody is. Personal identity is limited to an individuals compacity to continue the sameness of consciousness. Locke states that “whatever past actions [a man] cannot reconcile or appropriate to that present self by consciousness, can be no more concerned in than if [it] had never been done”, (Locke 4). which proclaims that the forgotten experience was not part of them at all. According to Locke, who a person is, can be tracked by their memories of their life previously. Therefore, Locke’s views imply the body of Clive is constantly harboring new consciousness that comprises different personal identities. Since each “new” life of Clive every few seconds is oblivious to the lives before, the multiple personal identities must not be a part of his present state or
John Locke, one of the most influential philosophers of his time, was born on August 29, 1632 in Wrington, a small village in England. His father, also named John, had been a lawyer as well as a military man who once served as a captain in the parliamentary army during the English civil war. Locke’s parents were both very devout Puritans and so to no surprise, Locke himself was raised with heavily Puritan beliefs. Because Locke’s father had many connections to the English government at the time of his growing up, John was given a rare gift at that time, an outstanding education.
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
John Locke wrote An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in 1689. He strongly defends empiricism in this essay and states his views on human knowledge and true understanding. In Book II, Locke offers his theory of personal identity; namely the mind theory, also known as ‘the psychological criterion’, in the middle of his accounts of general identity where he draws lines between inert objects, living things and persons.
This paper will argue that the philosopher John Locke would have agreed that the human being Karla Faye Tucker should have been executed. I will start by examining the fundamental difference between a human being and a person as forwarded by Locke. In addition, this paper will address what identity over time or what it means to be the same person over a period of time is. I will then show that through Locke's personal opinions, he would have believed that the human being Karla Faye Tucker was the same person who committed the crime 14 years ago and is thus culpable for punishment. A strong objection to my argument however is of Hume's opinion or lack of opinion (account or lack of account) on personal identity. Hume argues that the concept of personal identity is a falsification and that our personal identity is nothing more than a collection of memories which we bundle together as memories. I will counter-argue however that "
In a state of nature, each man, as the possessor of reason and free will, is cognitively independent and equal, and so, by implication, politically independent and equal (Braman 07). Locke knew that men were there own learning tools within themselves. Not only did they learn from there mistakes, which was known for centuries, but, they also grew from one another and took what they needed for there own well mental development (Braman 09) Just like mankind has been doing for as long as anyone can remember, they have been working there owns ways of life out for themselves and to learn from one another and not from someone or something telling you how you should be living.
David Hume was a philosopher who was interest in person identities and created the Bundle Theory. The Bundle Theory is an ontological theory about objects in which it consists of a bundle of properties, relations, or expressions. The object consists of its properties and nothing more than that, which means that there cannot be an object without its properties and no one can even think or imagine such an object. Every person is just a series of different events, states, sensations, and thoughts. We often question ourselves without identity with questions such as who are we? What makes who we are over time? Or what makes us the same person that we were since birth? Derek Parfit was another philosopher who was very interest in personal identity,
John Locke believes that A is identical with B, if and only if, A remembers the thoughts, feelings, and actions had or done by B. This shows that the important feature, memory, is linking a person from the beginning of their life to the end of their life. Locke’s memory theory would look something like this: The self changes over time, so it may seem like personal identity changes too. However, even if you are changing, you are still retaining past memories. Therefore, if you can retain memories, memories are the link between you and an earlier you, so personal identity persists over time. So, memory is the necessary and sufficient condition of personal identity. Locke’s theory says that we are
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:
John Locke believes that A is identical with B, if and only if, A remembers the thoughts, feelings, and actions had or done by B from a first-person point of view. This shows that the important feature, memory, is linking a person from the beginning of their life to the end of their life. Locke’s memory theory would look something like this: The self changes over time, so it may seem like personal identity changes too. However, even if you are changing, you are still retaining past memories. Therefore, if you can retain memories, memories are the link between you and an earlier you, so personal identity persists over time. So, memory is the necessary and sufficient condition of personal
“The real reason seems to me now this. Does personal identity just consist in bodily and psychological continuity, or is it a further fact, independent of the facts about these continuities? Our reactions to the ‘problem cases’ show, I believe, that we believe the latter. And we seem inclined to believe that this further fact is peculiarly deep and is all-or-nothing---we believe that in any describable case, it must hold completely or not at all. My main claim is the denial of this further fact” (Robinson).
Again, through consciousness we can correlate our experiences and our actions. Each moment we experience becomes a memory. The particular way the our memories are distinguished from another persons account of the event is how our “self” intercepts it. One can also relate our “self” is the memories to our same “self” in the present. As Locke also examined in his writing Of Identity and Diversity, we can repeat the ideas of our past actions with the same consciousness that we do our present actions and our future actions. This demonstrated the ability of how our “self” can endure all of the many beautiful and excruciating happenings in
SparkNotes Editors. (n.d.). SparkNote on Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/lockeessay/
John Locke believes that personal identity is about the human mind that has episodes of overlapping memories occur from how I can explain it based on how I perceived while reading his point of views. Locke considers the self to be really based upon our memory or consciousness and not on the matter of either soul or the body. From what I perceived, I think that on how Locke argued against the soul and body theories of personal identity was that the mind is defined by the experience, the perception and the rumination. But Locke’s main argument regarding personal identity is that personal identity is all about our self-consciousness. In Chapter 6 “Self” of Introducing Philosophy by Solomon, it states, “whose identity is based on the continuity of the body, just as you would say that you have had “the same car” for
Who am I? Wrestling with identity— our history, our culture, our language— is central to being human, and there’s no better way to come to grips with questions of identity than through the crossing of borders. The transcendence of borders reveals the fluid nature of identity, it challenges absurd notions of rigid nationalities, and highlights our common humanity. It is no coincidence, then, that my experience as an immigrant has shaped my academic journey and pushed me to pursue graduate studies.