The seventeenth century is marked as the beginning of the era of modern philosophy. This age of new knowledge was influenced by the Enlightenment period, which proposed a new way of thinking that encouraged one to use reason in order to make their own decisions and discoveries rather than relying on authority to tell them what to think. It was during this time period that several philosophers introduced their theories regarding ambiguous topics, such as the definition of knowledge, love, and personal identity. Two particular philosophers who hypothesized about personal identity were René Descartes and John Locke. René Descartes was born in a small town in France in 1596, and lived until 1650 when he died at the age of 53. He was a philosopher, …show more content…
Although the two philosophers agree that the identity resides within the mind, or consciousness, rather than the body, the reasoning as to why they believe this is not the same. In Descartes’ case, the mind/soul is the source of one’s identity due to it being static and unchanging; while Locke believes the mind to be where personal identity derives from due to the mind being where one’s memories are stored. Another difference between the two philosophers can be found by analyzing their definition of the mind. As stated, Descartes understood the mind to be a fixed, consistent entity, suggesting that one’s personal identity is also unchanging. However, because Locke viewed personal identity as a compilation of an individual’s memories and a person is always obtaining new memories, it can be presumed that Locke also believed that the identity was too constantly changing and evolving. This is perhaps the greatest difference between Descartes and Locke, because the debate over whether identity is fixed or variable brings forth an array of follow-up questions and …show more content…
Simply stating that the mind is constant and unchanging leaves out a lot of information and provokes a multitude of questions: Is every part of the mind included in the identity, or are there parts of the mind that are excluded from the identity of one’s self? What exactly is the mind made up of? Is it a collection of personality traits, memories, emotions, or something else entirely? Defining personal identity and where it comes from is an ambiguous inquiry as it is, and proposing a solution that is just as vague and perplexing seems redundant. The simple fact that Descartes’ theory leaves so many questions unanswered, as opposed to Locke’s hypothesis that includes what the identity consists of, is what influenced my preference for Locke’s ideology on the topic of personal identity over Descartes’.
Overall, every philosopher I have studied so far since the beginning of my exciting journey into the world of philosophy has proved to have conceived very intriguing ideas. Out of all of those I am currently familiar with, from Socrates to David Hume; my personal favorite is John Locke. Not only am I impressed with his ideas on personal identity, but also his adoption of the concept of natural human rights. If it were not for his influence on the society
John Locke states that personal identity is a matter of physiological continuity that is based on the consciousness of a person rather than the individual’s body. Personal identity is constituted by memory connections; specifically the depiction of autobiographical memory connections that result in constituting personal identity. John Locke states that a person’s personality and psychology can be transferred to another body and that individual can still stay the same person because the consciousness of the person did not change. This idea is known as transplant intuition. This intuition is the basis of the account of personal identity. If a cerebrum was removed from one body and transplanted into a different body, the transplant intuition
This distinguishes the human person from the human body: in the case that the human identity is tied up solely in its physical components, the scenario in which nothing existing would simply leave no room for the scenario’s consideration via one’s mind, creating a paradox. Therefore, Descartes’ conclusion that from the mind exists separately from the body lends itself to be the most immediate, logical explanation for human identity.
Locke is best known for his philosophical ideals regarding the rights of humankind- all individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property.
One famous influential philosopher was John Locke. Locke was born in England in the mid 17th century and lived through both the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. He strongly believed in equality for all men. In his book Second Treatise on Civil Government, he says that “creatures of the same species and rank…should be equal amongst another without subordination or
John Locke believed that everyone had a series of God-given rights—a natural moral law, and people gave rights to the government when it came to how they should be ruled. Locke is responsible for some of the most influential writings on liberty. His writings helped influence Thomas Paine’s ideas about revolution. James Madison, one of the writers of the bill of rights, was influenced greatly by Locke, and the French philosopher Voltaire called him “the man of great wisdom.”
In John Locke’s argument for personal identity, he believes that we are not substances or mere souls. In his argument, Locke stresses to convey that there is a crucial difference between distinguishing a “man” and a “person” (Locke 221). According to Locke’s definition, a man is a living body which is homogenous to an animal’s body. Therefore, any living body of a particular shapes refers to a “man.” Locke emphasizes that a “person” is a sensible being that is aware of its own
A simple example of this is: The person is the same person as someone in the past if the person has the consciousness of the experience that the someone in the past did. Thus, the identity of a person is limited to how much the conscious of later person remembers their earlier conscious memories. Only then he is truly the same person or himself. But then this bring few questions: Can there be a the same thinking substance in different people or different thinking substance in the same person and how do we punish people? To answer the first question he believes that the issue lies whether a immaterial being with consciousness could have its consciousness of its past actions be completely removed then begin a life with new consciousness. Nonetheless if it was possible then Locke argues that there is no reason to say that the person who’s soul and conscious lived before the removal is the same person whose new consciousness took over. To answer the second part, Locke says that the answer depends on whether the conscious of the past actions can be transferred to another person who did not experience it. Locke believes this phenomenon is possible and if it was, would this person be the same person he was before? Yes. Using Locke’s theory where
Locke’s argument for the memory criterion of personal identity, is that psychological continuity (the consciousness of past experiences) is the aspect that preservers our personal identity. Locke
One of the four was John Locke, who believed that freedom of individuals was a major key to a prime government.“What state all men are in… is a state or perfect freedom…” (Doc A). Locke primarily addressed that all people are born free and have the right to preserve their freedom. “The people are at liberty to provide for themselves..they have not only a right to get
I will argue that Locke believed that if you remain the same person, there are various entities contained in my body and soul composite that do not remain the same over time, or that we can conceive them changing. These entities are matter, organism (human), person (rational consciousness and memory), and the soul (immaterial thinking substance). This is a intuitive interpretation that creates many questions and problems. I will evaluate Locke's view by explaining what is and what forms personal identity, and then explaining how these changes do conceivably occur while a human remains the same person.
Since Descartes was able to think, he knew that he existed ultimately. With this in mind, Descartes reckoned that a person 's "self" illustrates their identity. Descartes states: “that he possesses a body intimately conjoined... and that he has a clear and distinct idea of himself, inasmuch...it is certain that this I [that is to say, my soul by which I am what I am], is entirely and absolutely distinct from my body, and can exist without it" (Descartes, Meditations On First Philosophy, pg.29). In fact, Descartes proposes that the body connects dually with the mind, which he believes the body is "divisible", and the mind as "indivisible", but he also informs the readers that he knows certainly who he is. Not only did Descartes deem this information as true, but he was adamant about the possibility of living without a soul. In particular, Descartes depicts a vivid picture of how the
Descartes was born the second child in a family of two sons and one daughter on March 31, 1596 in France. He contracted tuberculosis from his mother who died from the disease just days after his birth. At the age of eight he was sent to a Jesuit school and was educated in
Seventeenth century philosophers René Descartes and John Locke endeavored to question the views on consciousness, self, and personal identity. They examined belief in God, the certainty of knowledge, and the role of mind and body. The goal of this paper is to deliberate John Locke’s and René Descartes views on “self” and personal identity and how each come to examine how knowledge is captured. René Descartes and John Locke both present arguments that are rational in the discussion of consciousness, self, and personal identity, but each lack conclusive evidence that would provide the proof necessary to believe one or the other philosophies are true.
Philosophers over time have tried to explain their understanding on the view of personal identity some of the like Rene Descartes adding the views of the existence of the material souls or egos. His views on the existence of egos suggest that people have bodies which can die but still they continue to exist. In as such other philosophers proposed diverging views from him suggesting that such a simple
To begin with, I’d like to elaborate on the important material relating to each philosopher. Descartes argument for personal identity lied on the what's in our minds rather than the body. He felt that the mind was an undervalued component in considering human identity. Descartes perspective on the body was akin “To each substance there belongs one principal attribute... in the case of body it is extension”(Reference 1).This is highlighted by descartes famous quote during his philosophical career, “‘I think therefore I am’” (Reference 3). Therefore due to a lack of ability for the body to think or participate in his definition of thought, he believed it did not properly reflect an individual's true personality.