Personal Identity: Bundle and Ego Theory

The holistic view of the person consists of their mind, body, and spirit (Boyt Schell et al., 2012, p. 495). The roles the person partakes in are dynamic, varying across time and context, duration and significance (Law et al., 1996, pp. 15-16).

Derek Parfit believes that split-brain cases support the Bundle Theory because split brain cases appear to demonstrate two levels of consciousness, rather than suggesting that consciousness is destroyed in people whose sub-dominant hemispheres are destroyed. The suggestion that there are multiple levels of consciousness aligns with Parfit's understanding of Bundle Theory, although his explanation of Bundle Theory does not limit itself to two dimensions of consciousness. On the contrary, under Parfit's explanation, Bundle Theory suggests an almost infinite variety of levels of consciousness, which, when taken as a whole form the experience that one refers to as a human life. Therefore, to have dual experiences of consciousness would not conflict with Bundle Theory.

The psychodynamic theory argues that the personality contains three major components. The components are id, ego, and superego. ID is the unrestrained, pleasure-seeking component that a person is born with. Ego develops by living in the world and superego develops by interactions with others. When all three components are well balanced the individual lives a normal life. Now, when they are unbalanced and one

The ego is the mediator between the id and the circumstances of the external world to aid their interaction. The ego represents reason in contrast to the id. Freud called the ego ich, which translates to English as “I”. The ego follows the reality principal. The ego does not exist independently of the id. The ego exists to help the id, and is constantly striving to bring about satisfaction of the id’s instincts. If the ego fails to keep a balance with the id and superego, a person may have difficulty

Identity theorists hold the view that the mental events are nothing more than neurological activity of the brain. This theory is a subtype of the materialist view because the human mind

Around 1982, Swami Krishnananda wrote, "There is an intensive urge to solidify matter into a localised existence, which is what we call the ego." Throughout his collected works, he describes the ego, as a form of energy converging onto a single point, similar to the eye of a hurricane. This force or feeling that we exist as independent entities, which we are drawn to re-affirm at every turn, binds us to this focal point in space-time, while it maintains an air of separation from the cosmos in the deepest parts of our minds.

David Shoemaker provides two theories of egoism in the text--psychological theory and ethical theory. Psychological egoism is the claim that all actions are done solely for the sake of one’s own self-interest. Ethical egoism simply states that all actions ought to be done for the sake of one’s own self interests. Shoemaker elaborates stating ethical egoism is the more attractive theory.

Ego was symbolized as a “Man’s self mind or the conceptual faculty of reasoning” (Ayn Rand). The conceptual faculty of reason was what lead to a man's emotions. In seeing one’s own actions it gave motivation and goals to the individual. However, “Egoism should be distinguished from egotism, which means a psychological overvaluation of one’s own importance, or of one’s own activities”(Alexander Moseley).

The concept of personal identity or personhood is a very complex area of philosophy that challenges our most basic understandings of mind and matter. Philosophers have generally settled into either the school of mind, or consciousness, and the school of body. As our ability to study the mind grows, through developments in psychology and neurology, consciousness-based theories have come to dominate the discussion of personal identity and body-based theories appear simplistic and even primitive. Thesis: Catriona Mackenzie, however, compels the field to make a renewed examination of the body by pointing out that the body is the very apparatus by which the self interacts with world, thereby shaping all of the experiences which constitute memory and consciousness.

I strongly agree with David Cohen’s theory that personal identity derives from experiences and memories contained in the brain. To help explain why this theory seems to be the most logical let’s

Epistemology is defined as an investigation of what distinguishes justified belief and opinion, while identity is described as the fact of being who or what a person, or thing is. Throughout our lifetime, our identity becomes shaped by the things we believe. As we grow and mature we are taught key life lessons and values, and believe that following these will make us good people, which we all aspire to be. Epistemological views and personal identity connect in the sense that the things we choose to believe make up the person we show to the world, wether this be online or in person. Our justified beliefs and opinions that are created from either an influencer or from experience and knowledge, help shape us into the people we become. These beliefs

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

Descriptive egoism holds that for each individual, there is only one ultimate aim survival and the betterment of the sole individual based on their own hierarchical principles.

Everybody has an identity, it makes them individual and unique, and it defines who you are as a person. This project about my identity showed me what makes me unique. I would have never known how much my friends mean to me or how my identities connect with each other. I have three identities that make me who I am, cultural, personal, and social. A specific quality that covers my cultural identity is being Czechoslovakian. Both sides of my family have at least a part of Czech in them. My great-grandparents are from Czech Republic and my grandpa was the first generation in America, he was born in Ohio. This is very important because I have always identified as Czech and it is a big part of me, as I am so interested in ancestry. For my personal identity, the biggest part is my personality, being loud and outgoing, has always been important to me. The reason being, it is how people view me. A lot of people know me as the loud person or the person who talks a lot. That is meaningful to me considering I like people to view me in a certain way The last identity, social, is one of the most important to me because it involves my friends, and through this project, I learned how vital they really are to my social identity. I realized that I have a good amount of friends in this project. It is nice to have people as a support system and to relate with. These qualities show that I value being loud and outgoing. It also says that I value my family and they are a big part of life. The last one, social, ties in with the first one because it shows I am outgoing and friendly.

Hume explains his theory of self, which is referred to as Bundle theory, by asserting that people are confusing the concepts of identity