I Can Identify A Self

According to Miller’s first theory soul and body works together. By looking at soul we can tell who the person is. Each individual has their own soul which cannot be taken away from them. Furthermore when somebody's body deceases, so does their spirit. The issue with this hypothesis is if we apply this guideline to heaven, it gets to be inconceivable for somebody to get by after death of the body. After death, body will be spoiled so it’s absolutely impossible the same individual with the spirit will have the same body so it demonstrates that if there's one body one soul then there is no possibility to have life after death. This consequently demonstrates Miller hypothesis of body and soul isn't right, which means Weirob is right to claim that body and soul is not the only thing that defines a person. She defends her theory by saying that soul in not observable neither touchable nor audible, hence we cannot just say person A will always be person A because we can’t see their soul. Miller and Weirob both later realized something is wrong with Miler’s theory. So he came up with another theory which revolves around memory. As we all know memory is something which is hard to take away from a person unless he

371). This responds to the objections raised by Thomas Reid in the 18th century (Shoemaker, 2008, p. 340), however, the Memory Theory did require a modification to include the possibility of temporarily forgetting the experiences of an earlier person-stage, “as long as one has the potentiality of remembering it” (Shoemaker, 2008, p. 340). In the conversations held by Gretchen Weirob, Sam Miller and Dave Cohen in Perry’s ‘Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality’ (Perry, 1977), this concept is addressed in depth. Miller relays a chapter written by Locke – “the relation between two person-stages or stretches of consciousness that makes them stages of a single person is just that the later one contains memories of an earlier one...I can remember only my past thoughts and feelings, and you only yours...take this relation as the source of identity” (Perry, 1977, p. 343). These concepts are logical possibilities in my opinion, and are far less unstable than those presented within the Body/Soul Theory, as these concepts do not require the senses of others, but the individual’s first person perception of their personal identity.

Weirob brings up another example regarding the difference between the two. She recalls having had lunch with Miller before and says that the same body was present then as is at the time of their conversation, but it may or may not have been the same soul, adding to her belief that personal identity doesn’t necessarily coincide with one soul. – 282 words

However, I have changed as a person because of more reasons than just the adventure we have been on. My life has been impacted in many ways by watching Jerrod. For a couple years now I have noticed how my brother and his friends look at me. I have realized how big of a role model I am to them, and I have tried to give them the same influence that Jerrod gave me. Especially at a young age, the character developed has a huge impact on a person's future. Another big change is how I try to let others feed off my competitiveness and willingness to win. In the sports that I participate in, I have been placed in a few leadership roles. I have never looked at Jerrod during a football game and seen him without an immense amount energy and willingness to win, so I try to replicate that and give my teammates confidence. Finally, there is nothing better than laying down at night and knowing that it was a great day. I have tried to make the most of every experience that I am given and help others make the most out of their opportunities as well.

I believe I am still what I still put in because i'm still the same person that i been. I will say im a leader because i'm the varsity basketball captain and play sports at school so that makes me leader and i was raised to lead not follow so i always kept that chip on my shoulder and stayed being a leader. I'm a very motivated person i normally don't get distracted easily i would say i'm motivated in everything i do like i will make a goal to do something and if i don't achieve that goal i will be upset. Appreciative that's one thing i really am my parents raised me to be appreciative so i will always will be because i didn't grow up to get anything i want i had to work for mostly everything. Athletic that is my number one because i'm so athletic i'm the most athletic in the the school in jumping ability i jump so high i jump a 45 inch vertical at 16 years old going on 17 in september most people can't do that in there whole life and i'm very fit.

The first night of Weirob’s hospital stay, she speaks with chaplain Sam Miller. Their conversations surround the concept of if here is survival after death. Miller believes in the soul theory, or as he says, a concept revolving around a person’s identity. This theory states that people are reduced to their souls, not their bodies (Perry, 1978, 4). To Miller, what the soul consists of is unique. There are no two characteristics specific to a certain being and they only exist in a continuum (Perry, 1978, 6). You survive because it is not your soul that has died, only your earthly body.

People could think of me being more extroverted, like my brother when he went through Transition. He used to be a bit antisocial, and now he checks his messenger every 30 seconds. People would still think of me as being sarcastic, as I would still keep my sarcastic character for years to come (not sure whether 5 though). People could think of me being impulsive, even though if I develop that attribute, I would likely try to hide it. From trying to hide everything, I may look

     Hume on the other hand, took a different approach to the idea of self. He believed that there in fact was no such thing as selfhood. Instead he asserts that “it must be some one impression, that gives rise to every real idea. But self…is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference…” (597). By this he implies that in order to form concrete ideas, ones impressions of pain, pleasure, joy, etc. must be invariable throughout time. This, Hume states, we know without a doubt to be impossible. Passions succeed each other over time and give rise to new passions, therefore “…it cannot be from any of these impressions…that the idea of self is derived, and consequently there is no such idea” (597).

I believe my personality stays the same. I am mostly cheerful all day. If something is bothering me, I try not to let it affect the people I am around at the very moment. Some of my friends say I hold my emotions back and do not express them enough. They say “just let it out!” I feel I do express my feelings. Also I feel something’s are better left unsaid.

Greetings, Mr. Hume. During your colloquium, I found myself somewhat confused over the conclusions you drew regarding the self, or rather, the total lack thereof. As I understand it, you claim the concept of the self as a constant and static identity is nonexistent, as our idea of the self is influenced by our sensations, which are constantly in flux. While I certainly agree that the self is too nebulous to be reduced to some unwavering, undefinable substance that composes one’s identity, I am not so convinced that the self is nonexistent due to our own dynamic sense perceptions. My concern lies primarily with the subjectivity of impressions, in which you said: “[...] But there is no impression constant and invariable. [...] It cannot, therefore,

To most people in society, the “self” that defines a person is created through the experiences that one goes through in life. According to Dan Levitin in his article, “Amnesia and the Self That Remains When Memory Is Lost”, he explains that a part of the self still exists even if the memories fade.

John Locke believed, the enduring self is defined by a person’s memory. With memory there is an enduring self, and without it there is no self at all. I believe there is an enduring self, but it is a little more complicated than that. Even if a person encounters a dramatic change to his/her life, they are still the same self, the same person. I believe memory is not the only factor that defines the self. Many things form this enduring self, and these things work together to form an identity, to form who you are now. These things are your memories, your experiences and your personality. You may change and grow over time as you are exposed to new experiences, but under it all you are still ....you. But is a

A sense of self is a general conscious awareness of your own identity. I have come to understand the term as it is what defines me and makes me one of a kind. It could be a certain look, attitude or personality trait. It could also be the way I view a certain person, thing or subject. My sense of self could even be my purpose in life, perhaps? If it is, then I would say that my sense of self is something that has changed over time and will continue to develop as I get older and my life is influenced by events, places and people. Developing my sense of self is key to living a satisfying and healthy life.

Hume believed that the self was essentially a bundle of perceptions. Hume would claim that a unique identity that exists unchanged and gives the moments, which compose an individual’s life, continuity. Hume would say that when we make a claim such as “I experience a sunset” all we actually can claim, is that all the perceptions expected of a sunset are present and my mind has made relations among these perceptions. The next day “I” looks at the sunset there is no actual component, self, soul, or personal identity that is common to both experiences. Hume thinks that the idea of the

That is to say one’s impressions are continuously fluctuating each moment of the day, from pleasure to pain, “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call my self, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure, color or sound.” (Hume, pg. 145) Therefore, according to Hume, if the concept of ‘self’ is dependent on a constant, everlasting impression, but there is not a single impression that does persevere over the course of one’s life, there can then be no true idea of self “...I never catch my self, distinct from some such perception.” (Hume, pg. 145)