Summary: A Dialogue On Personal Identity And Immortality

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

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

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