The Prince And The Cobbler John Locke Summary

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

When facing unimaginable circumstances, there are some people who may compromise their dignity or integrity to make their life easier. In the case of Abd al-Rahman, the main character in “Prince Among Slaves,” some can say the prince compromised his integrity for the sake of his family. He doesn’t compromise his dignity and even builds, what some would consider, a dignified life during his time as a slave. “Prince Among Slaves” emphasizes keeping one’s integrity or compromising it when it may be necessary.

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.

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

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

Locke then presents his own body switching experiment to further strengthen his argument. The experiment is about switching souls between a Prince and a Cobbler. In this experiment, Locke takes the soul of the Prince and puts it in the body of the Cobbler and takes the soul out of the Cobbler and puts it in the body of the Prince. The result is that the Prince has the body of the Cobbler and the Cobbler has the body of the Prince.7 Both the Prince and the Cobbler feel normal because their consciousness goes along with their soul. Though the Prince and the Cobbler are in completely new bodies, they are still the same person because the soul that transferred from one body to other still has the same consciousness.8 Locke is trying to prove through his body switching experiment that personal identity goes where your consciousness and memories go. It doesn't matter what body contains what soul because each person has their own consciousness and that makes them able to identify themselves.9

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

Personal identity, in a philosophical point of view, is the problem of explaining what makes a person numerically the same over a period of time, despite the change in qualities. The major questions answered by Locke were questions concerning the nature of identity, persons, and immorality (Jacobsen, 2016). This essay will discuss the three themes John Locke presents in his argument regarding personal identity, which are, the concept of categories, substance vs. man vs. person, and the continuity of consciousness.

Locke believes that we are who we are because of a “continuity of consciousness” or in a simpler term, we are who we are because of the memories that we have. Locke also believes that a change to your body doesn’t affect identity, so the tattoo and change of dominant hand aren’t even relevant in his argument. Things get a little more complicated when you consider the fact that some of Willis’ memories resurface later in the episode. However, Locke would still say that Dupre is the person alive as he believes that a person’s continuous consciousness is what makes them themselves. The resurfacing of Willis’ memories are just additions to Dupre’s

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

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 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

The problem he has with us thinking like this is that all sorts of things would end up being defined as innate. Locke thought that we had the capacity to recognise “self evident” truths and that we do have an innate capacity allowing us to recognise things, however they are not actually innate ideas within us, but ideas we gain from experience which our innate capacity allows us to understand. He was of the opinion that ideas are material of thinking and that there was no thinking before perception. While the mind has the capacity to think, it is not actually constantly thinking. For example, if you are asleep but not dreaming, then according to Locke, your mind isn’t actually thinking.

Like many short stories “The Locket” has a plot twist that occurs at the end of the narrative, for the reason of destroying any assumptions made by the readers or the characters within the story. Many feelings are tossed around while reading letting you either give in to believing Edmond is dead or make your own assumptions of the story. The surprising and unpredictable ending held you waiting in suspense for what was to resolve after being deceived by Chopin’s great attention to detail.

You have attempted to show that we can think and not be aware of it by showing that Locke’s conception of consciousness leads to an infinite regress of reflections. If you had been successful in showing it absurd that we explicitly reflect on all of our thoughts, Locke would have had to accept the idea that we can think and yet not be aware of it. Therefore, it may be the case that the soul is indeed in perpetual motion. The first premise of your argument is your interpretations of Locke’s conception of consciousness; the mind’s explicit reflection of thoughts. On this account, whenever there is a thought in my mind, there is a higher-order reflection of that thought. It