Philosophy Paper #1: Personal Identity

Identity is a group of characteristics, data or information that belongs exactly to one person or a group of people and that make it possible to establish differences between them. The consciousness that people have about themselves is part of their identity as well as what makes them unique. According to psychologists, identity is a consistent definition of one’s self as a unique individual, in terms of role, attitudes, beliefs and aspirations. Identity tries to define who people are, what they are, where they go or what they want to be or to do. Identity could depend on self-knowledge, self-esteem, or the ability of individuals to achieve their goals. Through self-analysis people can define who they are and who the people around them

In, “A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality,” the author, John Perry, proposes three totally different ways of thinking about personal identity. The first theory is presented by a character named Gretchen Weirob, she believes that a person is their body. By this she means that a person’s identity is intertwined with the DNA and molecules of their body. Their personality as well as their personal identity can’t be separated from their body, and they cannot exist without it. The second theory was presented by a character named Sam Miller, he believes that a person is their immaterial soul. So in general, Sam thinks that the soul is this invisible, immaterial substance that is able to exist from the body. The third and final theory was presented by a character named Dave Cohen. Cohen believes that a person has continuity of memory, and/or psychology. So in general Cohen’s theory is that personal identity is a set of correlating experiences and/or memories enclosed in the brain. All three of the personal identity theories state some very valid points, but they also have some inconsistencies, some more than others. But there is one theory that seems to be the most credible, and creates a very compelling argument while also having a little science to back up some of its points.

This paper is about organ transplantation; the surgical removal of an organ from one person, which is then transplanted into a recipient with organ failure. (The Organ Transplant Process | organdonor.gov, 2017). The donor can be alive, but in the case of unpaired vital organs the donor must be dead. In this paper I will propose three questions in relation to organ transplantation. The main concepts underlying these questions will be cartesian dualism, which is a philosophy that argues that the humans consists of a palpable body and intangible mind. (Scheper-Hughes and Lock, 1987). Do we merely have bodies or are our bodies part of us?

Despite the advanced science involved, the philosophical issues are not new. English philosopher John Locke “argued that our identity is to be found in the continuity of our consciousness rather than in the continuity of our bodies.” (Solomn 323) Spridonov would agree with Locke: in interviews, he has stressed that he only sees this procedure as a way for him to live on with a new and healthy body. According to both Locke and Spridonov, the person with Spridinov’s head and someone else’s body would be mentally continuous with Spridinov and so would be

Identity. What is identity? One will say that it is the distinct personality of an individual. Others will say that identity is the behavior of a person in response to their surrounding environment. At certain points of time, some people search for their identity in order to understand their existence in life. In regards, identity is shaped into an individual through the social trials of life that involve family and peers, the religious beliefs by the practice of certain faiths, and cultural awareness through family history and traditions. These are what shape the identity of an individual.

Have we ever consider assembling a human body? I am afraid not. Clockwork of a clock is alike organs of human; if a piece goes missing both become malfunctioned. Similarly, in "The Nose" when a

There are many questions surrounding personal identity: whether it consists in consciousness, whether we are just a soul or a mind and are we only who we can remember being? Locke claims that our personal identity is found in our identity of consciousness, yet can this be true if a person can change bodies, or one mind can be inhabited by various persons? In this essay, I will first be looking at Locke’s account of personal identity and how he comes to the conclusion that personal identity consists over time. From this, I will then counter-argue Locke’s ideas with Thomas Reid’s discussion on the transitivity of identity, and how Locke’s argument of how consciousness makes the same person over time is inconsistent. In response to Reid’s

Despite the fact that human’s personality and preferences may change over time, philosophers have always sought the answers to how people have the impression that they are the same person. At first, philosophers presumed that people need to have the same body to be the same person. However, Locke proposed that consciousness, which is in this case memory is the key to determine identity. In this paper, I would discuss how memory as the mental states grounds the notion of psychological continuity. Raising the problem of circularity in the memory theory, I will explain how to amend the psychological continuity to avoid the problem.

The body, as a whole, is always a body composed of many bodies.There is a plurality of bodies in our body just as there are many lives in our life which is why in order for things to make sense they have to make sense as a whole in our lives and why you have to affirm the soul just as you affirm life itself. One must come up with an idea of soul that does not create an intrinsic hierarchy considering we are not on any other level separate from the souls of plants and animals, we

Just as life and death complement each other, the self is comprised in similar respects. Humans are typically characterized as having a consciousness, which consists of thoughts and memories, and a body. For a person to no longer possess a distinct self, a change in consciousness or to the body would have to occur. Diseases, for example, that affect the brain’s functions, including memory loss and abnormal thoughts, can interrupt a person’s everyday activities; in addition, a person suffering from a mental disease has difficulties identifying himself or herself thus suggesting the person is a changed self. Further, people with alterations to the body can be perceived as a new self from friends and family who no longer identify the family member or friend as the same person because of the physical change to his or her body. For this reason, a change in consciousness and to the body changes the uniqueness of an individual and, therefore, results in a changed self.

Towards the continuity theory, I felt as if my grandmother did what she could, how she could. She could no longer do the cooking she loved to do when she was younger. So, she stopped cooking, and adapted to reading her bible more, and listening to the radio. This might be true for some people, but I do not feel that it’s true for the majority. Many older people are comfortable leaving their old habits and hobbies in the past. Some choose to accept the fact that they can no longer do these things and adapt to the

To begin with, personal identity refers to the concept that a person develops regarding themselves, and it usually evolves in the course of their lives (Perry, 2008). According to Locke’s, it may include aspects of one’s life that they may not have control over, for instance, the color of your skin of the place that you grew up. Also, he believes that you can demonstrate your personal identity externally through your interaction with others or even what you wear. John Locke tackles the aspect of personal identity and also the survival of consciousness after death. In his explanation, he gives a criterion of personal identity over time. The approach postulates that insofar is the sufficient and necessary condition for a person to survive. According to John Locke, personal identity is dependent on the psychological continuity, and he deliberates personal identity to be established on the consciousness and not the substance of either the body or the soul.

We live within the idea that the body and mind are who we are. This is not unusual. But from a yogic perspective it is not the whole truth. When we are young, we are told that our essence is called soul, but we are given

Identity is what evolves us, it is what makes us think the way we do, and act the way we act, in essence, a person’s identity is their everything. Identity separates us from everyone else, and while one may be very similar to another, there is no one who is exactly like you; someone who has experienced exactly what you have, feels the way you do about subjects, and reacts the same to the events and experiences you have had. This became prevalent to me as I read through many books, that everyone goes through the process of finding who they are. A prevalent theme throughout literature is the idea that over time one develops their identity through life over time, in contrast to being born with one identity and having the same

When it comes to personal identity and survival of the self, it is difficult to say what defines a person throughout time. The three arguments are for the body, soul, and brain. These theories argue that each respective component of a person, must remain the same throughout time in order for a person to be unchanged. The brain theory is more plausible than its counterparts. To prove this, first, I will describe the soul and body theories, which I oppose, and then present an argument based on the brain transplant theory. A criticism for this is Perry’s third night argument that states the body donor is the surviving factor. My rebuttal for his counterargument uses Cohen and Miller’s Conventionalist Argument to support my original statement.