Personal Identity, By John Locke

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

John Locke has impacted psychology as it’s known today. His studies and ideas are the forerunners for numerous psychological ideas. Locke believed in the concept of “Tabula rasa” this is the thesis that the mind is a blank slate and has no personality when a person is born. Locke stated that all knowledge and ideas came from sensory experience, known as empiricism. He believed that innate feelings or experiences didn’t exist, he stated that our experiences are our knowledge.

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.

The purpose of this essay is to define what Personal Identity is by analyzing John Locke’s argument for Personal Identity. John Locke’s argument for Personal Identity will be examined, in order to establish a better understanding of whether or not the argument for personal identity could be embraced. In order to do so, the essay will i) State and explain Locke’s argument that we are not substances or mere souls and ii) State and explain Locke’s concept of personal identity and its relations to what he calls self, consciousness and punishment. This essay will also focus on Thomas Reid’s perspective on personal identity and iii) State and explain Reid’s criticisms of Locke’s theory of personal identity, and lastly iv) I will evaluate whether or not Reid’s objections are good. Locke’s argument may seem to be plausible at first, however, the essay will conclude by rejecting John Locke’s argument for personal identity due to Locke’s inadequate reasonings and Thomas Reid’s criticisms.

Locke’s states that “All knowledge comes from the senses through experience” interpreted when Locke’s “blank slate” idea to when we are kids we know nothing. Our brains have to make connections to things and these connections are gained through experience and continues

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

In philosophy, the issue of personal identity concerns the conditions under which a person at one time is the same person at another time. An analysis of personal identity

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 also believes that people have innate ideas through experiences. He has three explanations for this idea. Firstly, if we had innate ideas, we would know that we have them, which means that if you have ideas they are conscience and everything you think, you think you think. Secondly, if there were innate truths of reason we would all agree on them. Lastly, our memory cannot recall these innate ideas.

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

Locke argues that we cannot compare something until we have an idea of what category the thing being discussed will the placed under. He elaborates on this notion and argues that asking whether something is the same or not is very blunt and open. When asking a question about sameness, one could ask, "Is Professor Checkland the same person as he was five years ago?" instead of "Is Professor Checkland the same as five years ago?" The latter question is not acceptable, according to Locke, because there is no category under which Professor Checkland is being judged upon. The former, however, implies that Professor Checkland is being judged on the basis of whether he is the same person as he was five years prior.

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

A question that I have towards Locke's view is that if you have some kind of accident and lose all memory of your past permanently, are you really a new person? Locke states that you are a different person because your consciousness was no longer active after the accident, it was not continuous. Further on from that, so if a person is living their life with many memories, and then they are placed into a coma. When they wake up from that coma, and they do not remember anything at all, they now have a different identity according to Locke. Two things cannot have the same beginning according to Locke: “When we see a thing any thing, of whatever sort to be in a certain place at a certain time, we are sure that it is that very thing and not another thing existing at that time in some other place. We never find and can’t even conceive of two things of the same kind existing in the same place at the same time” (Essay II.xxvii.1). So if that person then begins to start remembering things, is that person still the same person that they were before the coma? Or does that person now have an even newer identity due to them not being the person who did not remember anything previously. In other words, as that

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

But according to John Perry, Locke’s theory suggests that if one person remembers for example, one person went to the market the day before and the next day recalls going to the market, then therefore he went to the market. However what John Perry is saying is that what if the person does not remember going to the market the day before, does that mean the person did not go? Does that mean that person who went to the market the day before is not the person who forgot? Another critic, Thomas Reid introduces “The Brave Officer Paradox” theory, which supports Perry’s thought about Locke’s memory theory. This theory suggests that if a little kid gets beaten up at school, then grows up to be an officer who as time passes becomes a general and as he grows older starts to not really remember his childhood. Does is mean the general is that same kid who gotten beaten up? (Piccirillo