"To rise again - to be the same person that you were - you must have your memory perfectly fresh and present; for it is memory that makes your identity. If your memory be lost, how will you be the same man?" — Voltaire
Perhaps even Voltaire took a look in the mirror and questioned the same things I ask myself every day. Who am I, and who will I become? Am I the same self I was ten years ago? Some philosophers may question, “Am I the same person that continues to exist overtime, despite changes in my body? How can we know that we are today, the persons we were last week?” These types of questions may seem superficial on the surface but deep down, it is the basis of self-perception.
Philosopher David Hume would argue that it is the psychological mind or the memory. It is the mind rather than the body that creates our personal identity. Hume believed that “the identity of persons and objects are two sides of the same coin”. In other words, objects and human beings were the same yesterday or ten years ago that we are today. Although we may have changed in many different ways over time, the same self or object is still present today as the same self was back then.
While I agree with these beliefs, I’ve only to argue one statement that I learned throughout this course. Self, is seemingly none other than your soul or the inner you. Person, is who your ‘self’ has been, who you are now and in the future. In other words I believe that self-perception is more of an interior mindset, while the person is the body or the exterior that the self lives in. Which leads me to agree with Hume’s belief that we are the same self that we have always been, but the person we are growing into is quite busy going through many different changes. An obj...
... middle of paper ...
...d within and agreed with one another that the soul has stayed the same; just like the ship that sailed into the harbor and was remodeled, they always feel like a shiny new penny but the same soul has always remained inside the exterior.
How do I know that I am the same person as I was ten years ago? I know that I am, because I was born into this body that has gone through many changes and life changing events, but the same me exists within this body and my ‘self’ will remain with this body even after its expiration. I am still and will forever always be the same me.
Works Cited
Hume, David. “The Self”. . Feinberg ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1993,pp. 324-326
Waldow, A. (2010). Identity of Persons and Objects: Why Hume Considered Both as Two Sides of the Same Coin. Journal Of Scottish Philosophy, 8(2), 147-167. doi:10.3366/jsp.2010.0004
Self could be defined in different ways. In John Perry’s “dialogue on personal identity and immorality”, both characters Weirob and Cohen are correct on their argument of personal identity, there are just some imperfections on each of the views. My view of “persons are identical with brains” fills the gaps of ideas of them. Brain is the junction that could bring mind and
The story of Clive actually provides evidence to Hume’s claim that consistency is not present throughout life. Hume came to this conclusion through the perceptions he acquires by the scenes, but Clive’s experience is much more evident. He is literally starting from scratch every time he blinks, therefor, he never remains who he once was. This vivid transition exaggerates Hume’s point that all people have been influenced extensively at all moments of their lives while awake and are continuously taking on a new form of “entity” so to speak. Despite the fact that Hume’s outlook on who a person is corresponds with Clive, I have quite different views on which philosophical historian manifest my idea of what personal identity
In this paper I offer an explication of John Perry’s dialogue on the problem of personal identity, and my evaluation of the strongest account of personal identity between the body, mind, and soul. In this paper I will argue that the strongest account of personal identity is that a person can be identified by their soul. By having the sameness of soul you will then be able to solve the problem of personal identity. Your soul is the foundation of whom you are and by definition, personal identity means “The persistent and continuous unity of the individual person normally attested by continuity of memory with present consciousness.” And without your soul memory could not exist.
All through life people strive to become someone with a specific identity; to be classified as a “somebody” rather than a “nobody”. This classification is most noted amongst high school students. Often youth identities are developed through the activities they participate in, the jock, the cheerleader, the nerd, the band geek. Yet, people are not the activities they participated in in high school. People graduate, go to college, work toward a career, have children. Then at the ten year reunion, those same high school jocks, cheerleaders, nerds, and band geeks gather once again to reminisce over the past. These people are no longer the high school activities of the past nor are these people the activities they participate in currently, their identities now, at this reunion, are judged by something different. The peers at the reunion do not look the same, but such qualitative identity is not important; a person does not have to look specifically the same to be the same person. Yet, how do peers judge a person’s identity, know James is still the same James and has survived time, besides the name tag they wear? Arguably, the most sufficient response to this question of personal identity is the use of the body criterion.
John Locke's account of identity was a radical rethinking on the subject of personal identity. Moreover, his conception of personal identity shaped modern thought about the subject by placing the emphasis on a psychological criterion . Locke argued that there is a distinction between the human being, the person, and the soul, and that the identity of the person relies upon the continuation of the same consciousness. In other words, Locke believed that personal identity remains if the same consciousness remained. However, at the time of publication, Locke was heavily criticised by those who argued that his uses of the word 'consciousness' was too ambiguous. Some, such as Thomas Reid, interpreted Locke as equating consciousness with memory, and as a result of the fallible nature of memory, argued that Locke's account of personal identity failed .
Many can remember a point in their life when they were a small child, carefree and happy with dirt on their knees and a smile on their face, but how can one know that he is the same person now as he was then? This is a question concerning personal identity; which addresses why someone at one point in life is identical with someone later in life. When it comes to personal identity and it’s persistence through time, many theories exist to explain what makes a person a person. One view is John Locke’s theory of personal identity. He stated that identity was not dependent on any material substance, such as one’s body, instead Locke maintained that personal identity is tied to consciousness and perceptions.
... be the same person no matter the circumstances of the memory transplant. This quotation illustrates the importance of each factor in shaping a person. He stresses that a loss of memories can affect a person dramatically so having a heart transplant could not ever match up. Memories are clearly defined as the most influential factor to one’s identity.
We often believe that others are more like ourselves than they really are. Thus, our
The Memory theory is insufficient evidence to support personal identity’s plausibility because of its three inconsistencies. If one imagines or simply hears a story about themselves and imagines or listens to the feelings and thoughts that are being brought to them, how can one tell the difference? If someone believes that something happened, and can resurrect sensations and thoughts from that event, how can anyone disagree? The conscious is unobservable, then how can anyone dispute that the thought is real or not? Reid also agrees that personal identity is totally undefinable, however he believes it is still possible it exists. Reid also mentions that memories may be able to explain a person’s existence but he is hesitant to attribute it to personal identity. Reid highlights the memory theory’s second inconsistency, how can one prove that their personal identity is unchanged? He presses further, “How do you know — what evidence have you — that there is such a permanent self which has a claim to all the thoughts, actions, and feelings which you call yours?” Thirdly, if one falls into a coma and regains consciousness with long-term memory loss, does that mean they are not the same person? And if that is the case, has the person before the coma in a sense, died? According to this view, they would not be
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:
Questions about God, knowledge, freedom, and immortality are asked not only by philosophers, but by all individuals. Answers to these questions are extraordinarily contradictory because different beliefs and opinions are held by everyone. A major philosophical issue is that of personal identity and immortality. Most commonly, philosophers attempt to discover what makes someone the same person they were ten or 20 years ago. Some argue that memory is the key to personal identity: however, others object.
Locke’s Memory Theory has been faced with a lot of criticism, but solves the philosophical problem of self-identity effortlessly and effectively. Locke shows how memories can link a person to all of the different parts of their lives. The events that take place in the course of one’s life mold one as defined by the conscious and these acquired memories and experience extend through time, allowing for an individual to retain the sense of self from all aspects and times in their life.
Hume believes that there is no concept of self. That each moment we are a new being since nothing is constant from one moment to the next. There is no continuous “I” that is unchanging from one moment to the next. That self is a bundle of perceptions and emotions there is nothing that forms a self-impression which is essential to have an idea of one self. The mind is made up of a processions of perceptions.
It has been demonstrated that memory is a constructed process. So, we can add new information to past memories every time that we retrieve it in a new context. Every time that people talk about past events’ memories, they most of the time forgets details or give wrong descriptions about things that happened. Moreover, in some cases, people can also describe things that never happened. Therefore, it is very easy to change others memories. It is amazing to know that our memory can be influenced by others in a positive and in a negative direction.
...have struggled with the nature of human beings, especially with the concept of “self”. What Plato called “soul, Descartes named the “mind”, while Hume used the term “self”. This self, often visible during hardships, is what one can be certain of, whose existence is undoubtable. Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am” concept of transcendental self with just the conscious mind is too simplistic to capture the whole of one’s self. Similarly, the empirical self’s idea of brain in charge of one’s self also shows a narrow perspective. Hume’s bundle theory seeks to provide the distinction by claiming that a self is merely a habitual way of discussing certain perceptions. Although the idea of self is well established, philosophical insight still sees that there is no clear presentation of essential self and thus fails to prove that the true, essential self really exists.