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 matters. In working out how to do so, Parfit comes to the conclusion that “the question about 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. I 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). Parfit aims to defend the following two claims about personal identity: 1. That sometimes questions about personal identity have no clear answer; and 2. That we can still answer important questions about, for example, responsibility, memory and survival even though we cannot answer questions of identity. Although he admits that some of these important questions do presuppose personal identity, Parfit believes that we can overcome this problem by prizing these questions apart from the notion of personal identity. Division Parfit uses a famous case of division (or fission), as imagined by Wiggins (1967), to illustrate his claim that identity is not what matters in survival. When A’s brain is split into two parts, each housed within two separate, brainless bodies (B and C) it seems that we have three options. We either believe that: 1. A has ceased to exist; 2. A survives as B or C; or 3. A survives as both B and C. Parfit objects to the firs... ... middle of paper ... ...ion is not an easy one to refute, though I believe that rather than disallowing all exotic thought experiments we should perhaps judge the suitability of each individual scenario on its own merits. This appears to be a more achievable task. Parfit readily admits that the idea that we can retain all that matters without identity is a counter-intuitive one. However, I believe that it stands up well to criticism and that it appears to have significant positive implications for morality and responsibility. In undermining the importance of identity, Parfit also attacks self-interested principles: “Egoism, the fear or not near but of distant death… are not, I think, wholly natural or instinctive. They are all strengthened by the beliefs about personal identity which I have been attacking. If we give up these beliefs, they should be weakened” (Parfit, 1971, p. 4.2:14).
The concept about the split-brain cases is two hemisphere separate apart, where means the left side focus on the left side, the right side focus on the right side (Parfit 378). He thinks that the concept of the split-brain and the normal brain are both true. Parfit denies that there are no person involved, also the ego theory doesn’t exist. He believes that once the brain has split apart, it has two separate streams of consciousness (Parfit 378). So, he claims that instead of asking “what happened to the original self?,” he says there is no ‘self’ (Parfit 379). Even though there are different events happened at the same time, that is not equal to different egos. “There are not here two different possibilities, one of which be true. These are
In the real life, it is hard to judge our personal identity: we are aware of who we are every second and minute, we also are able to check our appearance that we have known since we were born from looking at mirror. We know “I am myself” all the time.
In times past and recent, a person may have expressed their gratefulness to another person with a statement such as, no one expected to lose their life when they woke up today. This case of Phineas Gage is still a modern mystery to some people, in as much, the fact that he survived this horrific incident was a true blessing and a wonder for all to see. At a period in history where the brain’s activities and functions was in high debated, scientist wanting to prove their theory and every situation that involved the brain an avenue in which they used to fuel their research, Phineas gave them an enormous amount of evidence. In making the point that the brain has different lobes that has control over their respective areas and motor skills of
Hume, David. "Of Personal Identity." Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy. Ed. G. Lee Bowie, Meredith W. Michaels and Robert C. Solomon. 4th ed. Harcourt College Publishers, 2000. 348-352
Identity is very important in a person’s life. It can induce pride or shame, provide a community or provide a way to distinguish one’s self from others. But, where does this identity come from? It is easy to assume we are who we are because of who raised us, but this is not the entire case. Andrew Solomon, author of “Far from the Tree” introduced two different forms of identity, vertical and horizontal. He defines vertical identity as the attributes acquired and shared by the people we are raised by and horizontal identity as the attributes different from those who raised us, but are shared and acquired through a peer community. These two types of identities generally do not intersect and, depending on the circumstance, one can greatly impact
Among carpenters, it is a well-known fact that building a house upon a solid foundation is imperative. When beginning the construction of a home, the foundation is always the first step leading to success, for without it, the house will become unstable. During extreme weather, such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other conditions, a slight fault in the foundation of a home will most likely guarantee significant damage, if not complete destruction. Similar to a house, a person’s identity must rest upon a firm foundation; otherwise, it may not be capable of withstanding the ominous conditions of the world. When trials and burdens threaten to crumble people’s identities, their foundations must stand their ground and overcome the various tribulations. Although there are billions of inhabitants of the world, no two people share the same identity; rather, each person has unique memories, stories, events, and artifacts influencing who they have become. Some people’s identities may reflect a difficult childhood of discrimination, poverty, and hatred similar to the one described by Malcolm X in his article, “Nightmare.” Other people may associate with Katie Pederson and her article, “Identity,” in which they are defined through a simple artifact such as an identification card. In addition, numerous unfortunate people may struggle from the devastating effects of memory loss similar to those Floyd Skloot experienced, and they are helpless as their memories and identity slowly slip away from them. Still other people may find themselves desperately searching for acceptance and identity similar to the homeless man in Gina Berriault’s article, “Who Is It Can Tell Me Who I Am.” Unlike the homeless man and Malcolm X, I was fortuna...
...r differences between particular humans and changes within one particular brain. One obvious example of this objection is that stroke victims lose brain function and the mental states associated with them, but in time they are able to relearn mental states using different parts of their brain. This certainly discounts the fact that one mental state is identical to one brain state.
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
Authors are frequently categorized in some ways by the particular era they are writing in. This often gives a sense of what message the speaker is trying to relay, and the context in which the author is writing. Addressing the issue of self identity through this context allows a
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:
“It’s a blessed thing that in every stage in every age some one has had the individuality and courage enough to stand by his own convictions.” The part of me that sums up my identity best is not the adjectives given by family, or the faults I find in myself. My identity is my desire to better myself, and my passion for children. My identity is who I want to be and what I do to accomplish my goals My identity is the feelings and emotions I pour into my journal every day, and the way I feel when I do something right. My identity is not what others thing of me or what I think of myself after a bad day. My identity is the love and confidence I have in myslef, and the beauty inside.
The view of identity seems to be defined by facial features and social constructed views. Depending on the recent look of someone it may just be more then just color but also background. In this essay I will explain how I relate to some recent views based on philosophers I may agree and disagree with in order to describe my identity. Identity is much more then just being labeled as a race, it can be based on much more.
Briefly, we can conclude by deduction that body, brain, and soul are not sufficient to explain personal identity. Personal identity and immortality will always cause questions to arise from philosophers, as well as other individuals, and although many philosophers may object and disagree, the memory criterion offers the most sufficient explanation.
Valde, G. (1996). Identity closure: A fifth identity status. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157(3), 245-254.
Humanity is defined by one major factor: one’s understating of the self. By understanding one’s self, one can understand society and the world that surrounds themselves. There is one thing that can often distort one’s personality, one’s identity. By identifying as one thing a person can often change how they act or do certain things. This is often found to hide one’s true motives or intention, but it can also be used to hide hidden factors that aren’t as prevalent. One’s personality and identity are very closely linked, and tend to play off one another. This fact can be show in within multiple works. To name a few authors who demonstrate this fact: Clifford Geertz, Horace Miner, and Andrei Toom. Their works seek to dive deeper