John Locke on Personal Identity

Thomas Reid’s argument is that identity is attributed only to the things that have continued existence, and since consciousness is transient and often interrupted, it cannot constitute personal identity. Reid gives an example of consciousness being transient when a person is either asleep or unconscious. Reid states that when a person is sleeping or unconscious, his/her consciousness is interrupted temporarily during that period of time. Locke can respond to this objection by questioning if consciousness is really transient. He can question if it is undeniably the case that we are unconscious when we are sleeping. Many other philosophers and psychologists argue that even though our conscious may be numbed during sleep, it is still functioning and has not been interrupted, that is why we are able to hear loud sounds and wake up from our sleep. Secondly, Locke only requires that it be possible and that there is a disposition to remember the

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

Locke says personal identity is in the memory (consciousness) and not in a soul or body. In Locke’s “the Prince and Cobbler” example the cobbler switches bodies with the prince. The prince’s conscious is in the cobbler body. The personal identity of the cobbler is the prince and the as a man he is a cobbler. Locke’s Prince and Cobbler” can be applied to Douglas and Donna. Donna Perry is the same person as Douglas but with a female body. She is still aware of her actions/memories, but she only directly admitted her fault to her cellmate and had contradicted herself to admitting when interrogated. Locke says if the person remembers doing the crime then he/she is guilty. The changing of the body did not change her consciousness. She is responsible for her past doings and becoming a female does not deter

Locke looked at the world from the point of view of his senses, and he wanted to understand how an individual’s senses may alter the world to one versus another. “Our observation, employed either about external sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds, perceived and reflected on by ourselves, is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking.” (An Essay Concerning Human

John Locke claims that memory is the key to identity, so “as far [as] someone’s memory goes, is so far the identity of the person.” (Campbell) First, Locke explains the concept of body swapping in terms of the prince and the cobbler: the “transfer of memories between the body of the prince and the body of the cobbler would mean the people have swapped bodies.” (Campbell) In this example, the

Even though it could be the general simply lost recollection of that memory due to age, according to Locke, this gives him an entirely different

Any human being’s goals and aspirations may certainly change from moment to moment making them a different person every moment. Butler and Reid may be right in the aspect that a person may be a different person from moment to moment; however, the mistake thy make is when they stated that a person’s consciousness changes as well from moment to moment. Butler and Reid fail to address that from Locke’s perspective, consciousness stays the same if the person remembers their previous thoughts and memories. Butler and Reid’s logic is flawed because they’re interpretation of Locke’s psychological continuity is incorrect. Butler and Reid interpret consciousness in a different way than most other people which is what makes it easy to dismiss their objection to Locke’s continuity

Locke's view on personal identity has strengths but it also has several weaknesses or limitations. One important strength is when Locke states that a person should be held responsible for his/her actions if he/she recalls doing those actions. In this case, the person

To give a little more insight to what he means by this, I will provide another example. Let’s say that one person murders another; however, at the time the alleged murderer was not consciously aware of what they were doing. Therefore, Locke would say that that person is not the same as they were before they murdered the other person because they are not consciously aware of the

Locke looked the individual as a foundation of property rights, that’s means each person has a properly in his own. Also, everyone will have an executive ownership for themselves only. This ownership right would have to extend out to the individual’s labor. This is related to slavery on how people get treat, where people agree to give up certain right.

When considering knowledge, Locke is interested in the ability for us to know something, the capacity of gathering and using information and understanding the limits of what we know. He believes this also leads him to realise what we perhaps, cannot know. [1] He wants to find out about the origin of our ideas. His main stand-point is that we don’t have innate ideas and he aims to get rid of the sceptical doubt about what we know. The innate ideas which Locke sets out to argue against are those which “the soul receives in its very first being, and brings into the world with it”. [2] “Let us suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters”. [3] This quote depicts the idea of the “Tabula Rasa”, that at birth are minds

Doubting, believing, reasoning, and knowing, all constitute differing forms of reflection. When the two separate concepts purposed by Locke are combined, the result is a claim that experiences shape human knowledge and ideas.

Locke’s viewed man more lightly. He believed that man needed more leeway. He believed that humans needed a chance to govern themselves before someone else stepped in and took over. He also believed that man was not born