Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How do memories shape our identity
Memory and self identity essay
Memory and self identity essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How do memories shape our identity
Throughout A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality, Gretchen Weirob makes four central assertions regarding the possibility of personal identity and immortality, which are supported by four examples that are used recurrently between herself, the two arguing on behalf of personal identity and immortality, Sam Miller and Dave Cohen. The four assertions are: (1) if personal identity is real and definable, but unobservable, how can personal identity be identified by oneself or others?(2) If memory theory explains personal identity, by what means is this successfully accomplished? (3) personal identity cannot be independent of the body if it is located in the brain. (4) If immortality is feasible through duplication of personal identities …show more content…
Locke argues that personal identity is not measured through anything physical or observable, but rather, a person’s ability to recall the past memories and the connections between them. Although Weirob would argue otherwise, stating that the body and the conscious must have some connection and exclusivity, however Locke offers an interesting example as a rebuttal. He argues, if one were to take a knife and cut their own pinkie finger off, they would still be the same person with the same memories, regardless of what body parts remain attached or otherwise. In addition, he argues that identity is also dependent on the idea that two things cannot be the same and exist in two places. By their nature, being in two different locations makes them different, inherently. The implications of this view have been well challenged by Weirob, and the two conditions described by Locke coincide one another. If identity is unobservable by anyone but themselves through memory recall, how can you prove there isn’t someone out there with the same real memory recall? If it can only be proven inside our own minds, how would anyone be able to prove that someone doesn’t have the same memories without some form of telepathy? As we can assume telepathy is unlikely, what can be drawn from this conclusion is …show more content…
However, the more distressing conclusion that can be drawn from this is that without a personal identity, how can anyone be held liable for their actions? Or worse, if personal identity and immortality do not exist, does that render all of our experiences, morals, and actions as utterly pointless and expendable? How can one even accustom themselves into modern society with this worldview? Ultimately, the quote mentioned by Miller was quite accurate, “A little philosophy turns one away from religion, but that deeper understanding brings one back.” Perhaps, even with this deeper knowledge that personal identity and immortality does not exist, we are all faced with choice to find spiritual answer to assuage ourselves into functioning normally in society; or accept the knowledge that neither truly exists and live life outside of the moral and societal norms of the
The only logical conclusion to derive from this observation is that what we consider to be ourselves is not our bodies. As a result, an individual’s personal identity cannot be rooted in just his or her body, unlike what body theorists would like to
Parfit’s view on the nature of persisting persons raises interesting issues in terms of identity. Though there are identifiable objections to his views, I am in favor of the argument he develops. This paper will layout Parfit’s view on that nature of persisting person, show support as well as argue the objections to the theory. In Derek Parfit’s paper Personal Identity, Parfit provides a valid account of persisting persons through time through his clear account of psychological continuities. He calls people to accept the argument that people persist through time but people do not persist or survive by way of identity.
Although the concept of identity is recurrent in our daily lives, it has interpreted in various ways.
Personal immortality seems to be a paradox that many people address and distinguish in different ways. Through outlets such as religion, science, or personal belief this topic is often argued and habitually facilitates strong arguments. Weirob and Miller explicitly explain their dualist/physicalist outlooks on personal immortality as they have a conversation at the hospital where Weirob slowly succumbs to her injuries received in a motorcycle accident. As Weirob patiently awaits death, Miller explains how due to Weirobs realist view on life he will not try to “comfort [her] with the prospect of life after death” (Perry, pg. 65). Due to Weirobs state of unavoidable demise she asks Miller to entertain her with the argument for life after death,
John Locke believes that A is identical with B, if and only if, A remembers the thoughts, feelings, and actions had or done by B from a first-person point of view. This shows that the important feature, memory, is linking a person from the beginning of their life to the end of their life. Locke’s memory theory would look something like this: The self changes over time, so it may seem like personal identity changes too. However, even if you are changing, you are still retaining past memories. Therefore, if you can retain memories, memories are the link between you and an earlier you, so personal identity persists over time. So, memory is the necessary and sufficient condition of personal
To answer the question of whether a person can persist through time, it is important to consider what is meant by a ‘person’. This consideration seems trivial at first, and if one were to take the physicalist route, it would be – a person persists through time by existing as the same human animal. However, it is in fact a lot harder to pinpoint what the ‘self’ actually consists of if we were to take the psychological route and consider the voice inside our heads, the voice that thinks and experiences and suffers. What is this mysterious immaterial phenomenon that we hold to be our personal identity? And what makes it the same entity as the one yesterday? Although these questions don’t have an explicit answer yet, in this essay I will attempt to give an insight on how they could be answered, offering a psychological
Locke first outlined his view of personal identity in Chapter XXVII of book II in ‘An Essay concerning Human Understanding’ however faced a number of criticisms. This essay will assess how convincing John Locke’s account of personal identity is, whilst analyzing Reid and Berkeley’s criticisms of his view. Locke’s psychological account of personal identity is not a persuasive one due to the inconsistencies that are highlighted by Reid and Berkeley and I will defend this view in this essay. Locke’s account of personal identity leads to a number of contradictions which he attempts to respond to, however whilst barely addressing the criticisms he faces, his responses are also unsuccessful as both Reid and Berkeley counter each response further.
Weirob believes that personal identity is consisting of combination of a person’s thoughts, memories, feelings, and experiences. According to her: “Survival means that tomorrow
In David Lewis’ article “An Argument for Identity Theory” Lewis defends the psychoneural identity theory, arguing that mental states or experiences are neural states. In his main argument, he argues that physics can explain the causal relationship between mental states or experiences and physical phenomena. He uses an analogy of a cylindrical combination lock to explain the causal role that mental states play in producing physical phenomena. In order to put the lock into a state of being “unlocked”
If the book remained untouched in perpetuity, then the identity of the book would remain unchanged. But if pages were torn out of the book, Locke’s view would be that it is not the same book anymore – there ceases to be a perfect continued existence of material body (Emerson, 1997:1) Locke viewed the identity of living entities in a different light. Above, change in mass constituted a change in identity. But, in living entities a change in mass does not affect the identity of the object.
In John Perry’s “dialogue on personal identity and immorality”, Dave Cohen and Sam Miller visit Gretchen Weirob in the hospital because of Weirob’s injury in a motorcycle accident, they raise a discussion on personal identity. Cohen later takes up issues raised in the case where Julia’s brain is taken from her deteriorated body and placed on the healthy body of Mary whose brain has been destroyed. Therefore Mary has her own body with Julia’s memory and personality. The case proposes an argument
Identity, an ambiguous idea, plays an important part in today’s world. To me identity can be defined as who a person is or what differentiates one person from another. Identity would be a person’s name, age, height, ethnicity, personality, and more. A quote by Anne Sexton states “It doesn't matter who my father was; it matters who I remember he was”(Anne Sexton). This quote helps me define identity because I believe it is saying that identity is what people are remembered by. When some people think of identity, words such as, uniqueness, distinctiveness, or individuality may come to mind. However, I disagree with this because when I think of identity I think of mimicry, self-consciousness, or opinions.
In his 1971 paper “Personal Identity”, Derek Parfit posits that it is possible and indeed desirable to free important questions from presuppositions about personal identity without losing all that matter. In working out how to do so, Parfit comes to the conclusion that “the question of identity has no importance” (Parfit, 1971, p. 4.2:3). In this essay, I will attempt to show that Parfit’s thesis is a valid one, with positive implications for human behaviour. The first section of the essay will examine the thesis in further detail, and the second will assess how Parfit’s claims fare in the face of criticism. Problems of personal identity generally involve questions about what makes one the person one is and what it takes for the same person to exist at separate times (Olson, 2010).
The personal identity continues to be same since a person is the same rational thing, same self, and thus the personal identity never changes (Strawson, 2014). Locke also suggests that personal identity has to change when the own self-changes and therefore even a little change in the personal identity has to change the self. He also provides an argument that a person cannot question what makes something today to remain the same thing it was a day ago or yesterday because one must specify the kind of thing it was. This is because something might be a piece of plastic but be a sharp utensil and thus suggest that the continuity of consciousness is required for something to remain the same yesterday and today. John Locke also suggests that two different things of a similar type cannot be at the same time at the same place. Therefore, the criteria of the personal identity theory of Locke depends on memory or consciousness remaining the same (Strawson, 2014). This is because provided a person has memory continuity and can remember being the same individual, feeling, thinking, and doing specific things, the individual can remain to be the same person irrespective of bodily
What is personal identity? This question has been asked and debated by philosophers for centuries. The problem of personal identity is determining what conditions and qualities are necessary and sufficient for a person to exist as the same being at one time as another. Some think personal identity is physical, taking a materialistic perspective believing that bodily continuity or physicality is what makes a person a person with the view that even mental things are caused by some kind of physical occurrence. Others take a more idealist approach with the belief that mental continuity is the sole factor in establishing personal identity holding that physical things are just reflections of the mind. One more perspective on personal identity and the one I will attempt to explain and defend in this paper is that personal identity requires both physical and psychological continuity; my argument is as follows: