Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Psychological continuity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Psychological continuity
In this paper, I will argue the idea that if the teleportation technology was to exist and I used it, then it would still be me who arrives in New York. To articulate this point I will use Derek Parfit’s ideas of psychological continuity. In order to achieve this I will use Parfits idea to establish what I believe makes one unique, or what composes their identity. I will use Parfit’s idea of psychological continuity as a way to define what the I is (which is the same way he uses it), and how problems may arise with the teleportation problem. Ultimately I will conclude that in most cases psychological continuity usually represents identity. It is beneficial to define what I believe makes a person who they are, or what I believe identity is. I would agree with Parfit on his use of the idea of …show more content…
If every single atom in my body were to be reassembled in the same unique way that I am assembled now, then I would argue that I would be the same person. Even though I may be composed of different atoms from which I was originally made of, it would still be me. Particular atoms should not define who someone is, but the structure and layout of these atoms are the indicators of identity. In the body, materials (proteins, cells etc.) are always being broken down and rebuilt constantly cycling through different atoms. To support this idea, consider this: am I the same person that I was yesterday? Maybe not temporally (perhaps I had an epiphany), but I would still be me, at least from my perspective. In my opinion, it is absurd to say that I am not the same person I was yesterday, even despite the potential personality change. Why would I say that in terms of identity I am different from who I was yesterday? It is the same subject because of psychological
and personal identity; identity is what makes someone, but identity can also be seen as
It was after I had lost someone in my life that was my other half. I didn’t understand who I was, what my purpose was, what made me who I am. As far as I was concerned I was reduced to nothing more than an individual that was now alone. I didn’t realize that my identity was partly crafted from simply just being by their side all the time, that whenever I was introduced to someone, or was talking to mutuals about them, I was known for being their best friend. After the fiasco that became the end of our relationship, I felt as if I was just floating through the days and nights. This feeling went on for about 2 months until I slowly came out of it. I didn’t experience a grand epiphany of any sort that inspired me to change myself. I was painting and listening to music and the thought just slowly came to me. I love to paint, and I love listening to and creating and playing music. I began to gain back my sense of identity by engaging in activities I loved. I’m a painter, a musician, a writer, a passionate lover of movies. I’ve learned that identity can isn’t set in stone, there’s always room for
Identity is the essential core of who we are as individuals, the conscious experience of the self-inside.
Parfit’s view on the nature of persisting persons raises interesting issues in terms of identity. Though there are identifiable objections to his views, I am in favor of the argument he develops. This paper will layout Parfit’s view on that nature of persisting person, show support as well as argue the objections to the theory. In Derek Parfit’s paper Personal Identity, Parfit provides a valid account of persisting persons through time through his clear account of psychological continuities. He calls people to accept the argument that people persist through time but people do not persist or survive by way of identity.
Before beginning the explanation of how an identity is formed, one must understand what an identity is. So, what is identity? To answer this, one might think of what gives him individuality; what makes him unique; what makes up his personality. Identity is who one is. Identity is a factor that tells what one wants out of life and how he is set to get it. It tells what kind of a person one is by the attitude and persona he has. And it depends upon the mixture of all parts of one’s life including personal choices and cultural and societal influences, but personal choices affect the identity of one more than the others.
Identity is a group of characteristics, data or information that belongs exactly to one person or a group of people and that make it possible to establish differences between them. The consciousness that people have about themselves is part of their identity as well as what makes them unique. According to psychologists, identity is a consistent definition of one’s self as a unique individual, in terms of role, attitudes, beliefs and aspirations. Identity tries to define who people are, what they are, where they go or what they want to be or to do. Identity could depend on self-knowledge, self-esteem, or the ability of individuals to achieve their goals. Through self-analysis people can define who they are and who the people around them are. The most interesting point about identity is that some people know what they want and who they are, while it takes forever for others to figure out the factors mentioned before. Many of the individuals analyzed in this essay are confused about the different possible roles or positions they can adopt, and that’s exactly the reason they look for some professional help.
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
Accordingly, all that is needed for an individual to possess and maintain his personal identity are certain mental capacitates for having conscious experiences, the examples of thoughts and sensation are given, and the ability to perform intentional actions. It this portion of the theory, a departure from the traditional Aristotelian view of substances is made. The original viewpoint of Aristotelian forms can apply only to inanimate objects, which have no personal identity, in this dualist theory, if the arguments illustrating that two people can be the same person, even if the is no continuity between the physical matter of each body are correct. Consequently, for two substances to be considered the same, in this reformed view, they
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.
ABSTRACT: In Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit argues for a Reductionist View of personal identity. According to a Reductionist, persons are nothing over and above the existence of certain mental and/or physical states and their various relations. Given this, Parfit believes that facts about personal identity just consist in more particular facts concerning psychological continuity and/or connectedness, and thus that personal identity can be reduced to this continuity and/or connectedness. Parfit is aware that his view of personal identity is contrary to what many people ordinarily think about persons, and thus if his view is correct, many of us have false beliefs about personal identity. Further, since many of our views about morality are based upon our views about personal identity, it follows that we may also have to change our beliefs about morality as well. Parfit, however, thinks that in many cases such changes represent an improvement over our former beliefs and better fit with our considered moral judgments. But instead, I argue that Parfit’s account poses a serious threat to considered moral judgments, and, in particular, that it seriously undermines any substantial notion of moral commitment. As such, even if Parfit is metaphysically correct, I suggest we may have practical reasons, based on our moral concerns, for holding to a more weighty view of the nature of persons.
...can go through an entire lifetime and not really know how to define their own identity. In many cases people suffer through a great crisis to discover who they really are. If someone doesn?t know the meaning of their own identity, how can society apply a definition to the word? It leaves people to ponder whether or not there are some feelings and parts of life that simply cannot be explained. When defining the word identity scholars and common men alike must agree to disagree. It is a word so diverse in context that it is seemingly impossible to take it down to a simplified definition. There are some things in life that just aren?t meant to be completely understood, and one?s identity is among these things. Not until a person has a lived out their live could they sit down and tell you how their adventure has shaped them into the person they became in the end.
Identity is a person’s socially and historically constructed concept. We learn and determine our own identity through the interactions of family, peers, media and also other connections that we have encounter in our life. Gender, social class, age and experience of the world are the key concepts which plays a substantial role in shaping how we are by facing obstacles in our lives. According to Mead (1934) as cited in Thulin, Miller, Secher, and Colson (2009), identity theory determines
Identity is popularly regarded as a combination of personality, feelings and beliefs. Basically, identity defines who a person is. It is used to describe and distinguish the personality of people. It is what makes people unique. Some may believe that identity and personality are similar or the same, but personality is simply an insincere impression and does not involve a person’s hidden feelings and beliefs. That is, the way we are brought up is what defines us; it is what we become or what we are and that cannot be changed in any way until we embrace a different culture or decide to change our way of doing things.