The Theories Of John Locke's Identity

I do not believe that the Identity theory solves the mind/body problem as well, because the identity theorists they fail to construe what consciousness is from both the internalists and externalists perspectives. Since something as complex as consciousness cannot be simplified to physical properties as the identity theorists would like to think so, then they are left with the question of how someone is able to understand if they really, in fact, aware of their consciousness.

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.

There is survival after death where the death becomes parts of the soul and the body.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will argue that Locke believed that if you remain the same person, there are various entities contained in my body and soul composite that do not remain the same over time, or that we can conceive them changing. These entities are matter, organism (human), person (rational consciousness and memory), and the soul (immaterial thinking substance). This is a intuitive interpretation that creates many questions and problems. I will evaluate Locke's view by explaining what is and what forms personal identity, and then explaining how these changes do conceivably occur while a human remains the same person.

In his essay Of Identity and Diversity, Locke talks about the importance of personal identity. The title of his essay gives an idea of his view. Identity, according to Locke, is the memory and self consciousness, and diversity is the faculty to transfer memories across bodies and souls. In order to make his point more understandable, Locke defines man and person. Locke identifies a man as an animal of a certain form and a person as a thinking intelligent being. Furthermore, to Locke, a person has reasons and reflections and can consider itself as being itself in different times and places; and he/she does it with his/her consciousness (429). Basically, personal self is a particular body and personal identity is consciousness. In this

I believe there are both an immaterial part to you and a physical part. The physical part of you cannot survive without the immaterial. The immaterial part of a person is the soul, which I also believe, is the mind. However, your soul can live on without the physical sense of you. I believe that the physical part of you, your body, is acting like a cage to your soul. The body is kind of like a suit that your soul wears while it is on Earth. There is only one part of you that controls your actions and thoughts, which is your mind. Also, I believe that your body without a soul is just dead. If your soul and body are no longer at one then I believe you soul moves on to another world where your body is just dead. Once the soul and body are no longer connected the body has no purpose and has no actions. Since without the soul the body is nothing but matter then the soul is that part that is making all decisions, which is why I believe it is also the mind. It is the part of a person that make up a personality or gives a person reason. I believe the mind is the only part of a person that makes decisions and puts your physical body in action. With believing that the soul is in a body but the soul does not need the body, I

Since Descartes was able to think, he knew that he existed ultimately. With this in mind, Descartes reckoned that a person 's "self" illustrates their identity. Descartes states: “that he possesses a body intimately conjoined... and that he has a clear and distinct idea of himself, inasmuch...it is certain that this I [that is to say, my soul by which I am what I am], is entirely and absolutely distinct from my body, and can exist without it" (Descartes, Meditations On First Philosophy, pg.29). In fact, Descartes proposes that the body connects dually with the mind, which he believes the body is "divisible", and the mind as "indivisible", but he also informs the readers that he knows certainly who he is. Not only did Descartes deem this information as true, but he was adamant about the possibility of living without a soul. In particular, Descartes depicts a vivid picture of how the

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.

Some would choose to declare that every human being is both a body and a mind. Both being gelled together until death, than having the mind go on to exist and the body being lifeless. A person lives throughout two collateral histories, one having to do with what happens to the body and in it, and the other being what happens in and to the mind. What happens to the body is public and what happens to the mind is private. The events which reply to the body consist of the physical world, and the events of the mind consist of the mental world.