1)Bodily Substance is the theory of identity that something is entirely material. Bodily Continuity is physical but also states that the body is always changing but we are the same. Psychological Continuity is the theory based on the idea that memory makes us who we are, such as the example of the Boy, Officer, and General we discussed in class. John Lockes theory on personal identity supports Psychological Continuity. As stated by Locke “I am for what I did the last moment” (Hallman 17). In Lockes theory he argues for psychological continuity by saying “Since personal identity reaches no further then consciousness reaches, a pre-existent spirit, having continuous so many ages in a state of silence, would make different persons” (Hallman …show more content…
Locke is a supporter that identity is a psychological thing rather then physical. While on the other hand Descartes believes identity is broken into two different categories which are body and soul. They are the same in the case that Descartes believes that thinking is found in the soul which is tied together to Lockes associating identity to a thinking mental state. They are different in the aspect Descartes believes that identity is also physical instead of just psychological. Desecrates believes the body and soul need each other like a “Pilot in his ship” (Hallman 50). He explains how the soul is “Joined to the body” (Hallman 48) at the pineal gland. His conclusion is the soul uses the body until the body dies and the soul moves on. To support Lockes theory of strictly psychological continuity he explains, even though a tiny finger is cut off does not mean the persons identity and consciousness goes along with it. Lastly he supports his theory by saying as time goes on “We lose sight of our past selves” (Hallman 14), Which supports that identity is a mental state. I believe Locke proves a better argument. I feel this way because Descartes feels a a spirit sends signals to a gland in a persons brain that determines what they do. I feel Locke proves his point well, that the mind is always changing and the identity is made up of a psychological mental
The psychological continuity claims that personal identity is a necessary condition for personal identity persistence. According to the psychological continuity, “A person X at t is identical with Y at t* if and only if Y is psychologically continuous with X.” According to John Locke” identity of persons, is identity of consciousness” What this means is that you can change your body entirely but still be the same person because it only consider the mind. The mind is what stays the same hence psychological continuity is a necessary condition for personal identity. Though, Locke’s argument might seem convincing it’s has a lot of fallacies. A strong objector to that argument was Reid. Reid suggested through his “brave soldier” example that Locke’s argument isn’t the basis for personal identity. First, let me point out that psychological continuity has a chain of person stages connected by episodic memory. Also, psychological continuity claims that as long as you remember now being the same person in the past, then your body right now is identical to the same person you were before. In other words, if you lose your memories, then you aren’t the same person as
This is a change from ancient and medieval traditions, like Aristotle, because Descartes does not focus externally on a soul or on an external thing that is using the human body; rather Descartes believes that the body is used to give us perceptions but that we cannot always trust these perceptions while seeking the truth (Brown 156). Descartes explains that “... our senses sometimes deceive us, I wish to suppose that nothing is just as they cause us to imagine it to be… I resolved to assume that everything that ever entered into my mind was no more than the illusions of my dreams” (Brown 156). Descartes also mentions that he does not believe all things are false because of his existence, he thought “... remarking that this truth ‘I think, therefore I am’ was so certain… if I only ceased from thinking, even if all the rest of what I ever imagined had really existed, I should have no reason for thinking that I had existed. From that I knew I was a substance the whole essence or nature if which is to think” (Brown
In defining mind and matter, Descartes is simultaneously equating the mind with the soul whilst proving it to be distinct from the body and matter. Many philosophers of mind have attempted to address the mind-body problem, proving the relationship between the above two elements. Famously addressed by Descartes, he explored the relationship between consciousness and the brain as he provided several arguments in defence to his stance to the explanation of the union between the mind (or soul) and the body. One of which is the argument from indivisibility:
One of the ways in which Descartes attempts to prove that the mind is distinct from the body is through his claim that the mind occupies no physical space and is an entity with which people think, while the body is a physical entity and cannot serve as a mechanism for thought. [1]
In order to form an opinion on what Locke would do in the case of the 80 year old man who has been charged with war crimes that he genuinely does not remember one has to analyse the complex definitions surrounding identities. This essay will look into Locke’s thoughts and theories and by process of elimination speculate on how Locke would have evaluated the claim.
In the Sixth Meditation, Descartes makes a point that there is a distinction between mind and body. It is in Meditation Two when Descartes believes he has shown the mind to be better known than the body. In Meditation Six, however, he goes on to claim that, as he knows his mind and knows clearly and distinctly that its essence consists purely of thought. Also, that bodies' essences consist purely of extension, and that he can conceive of his mind and body as existing separately. By the power of God, anything that can be clearly and distinctly conceived of as existing separately from something else can be created as existing separately. However, Descartes claims that the mind and body have been created separated without good reason. This point is not shown clearly, and further, although I can conceive of my own mind existing independently of my body, it does not necessarily exist as so.
I have shown throughout this essay that we can determine personal identity solely based on psychological continuity. During John Perry’s dialogue he says that there are only three ways in which we can tell a person is who they are. Those three ideas being a person is their body, a person has a continuation of memory, or a person is their immaterial soul. Through the whole of this essay we have discussed that even though bodily identity and immaterial souls are a good suggestions for determining personal identity that they really aren’t logical theories. I have argued that we can distinguish personal identity from psychological continuity.
Once Descartes recognizes the indubitable truth that he exists, he then attempts to further his knowledge by discovering the type of thing that he is. Trying to understand what he is, Descartes recalls Aristotle's definition of a human as a rational animal. This is unsatisfactory since this requires investigation into the notions of "rational" and "animal". Continuing his quest for identity, he recalls a more general view he previously had of his identity, which is that he is composed of both body and soul. According to classical philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, the key attributes of the soul involve eating, movement, and sensation. He can't claim to h...
These premises, both of which are true, support the conclusion of this argument. The first premise states that bodily continuity is required for the function of mental continuity; this is of course true as all mental activity is generated within the brain whose livelihood relies on adequate operation of the body. Additionally, in the second premise it is noted that mental continuity is necessary in defining personal identity. Mental continuity as it relates to personal identity is a combination of memory and consciousness. Memo...
Based on the "Right Theory" of John Locke, the 17th century British philosopher, He argued that "laws of nature mandate that we should not harm anyone's life, health , liberty or possessions." Food is considered as a possession by other person so if you steal, you can be a violator to "the laws of nature." Therefore, based on Locke's theory stealing can viewed as immoral or unethical. In addition, he said that every person has "the rights and duties" to each other. Meaning, you have the right to acquire possessions including the your basic needs such as food. And other people, on other hand have also a moral duty not to rob you.
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
Descartes argues that the mind and body can be thought of as separate substances. Descartes writes “I have a body that is very closely joined to me, nevertheless, because … I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, insofar as I am merely a thinking thing and not an extended thing and because … I have a distinct idea of a body, insofar as it is merely an extended thing and not a thinking thing, it is certain that I am really distinct from my body and can exist without it” ( Descartes 50). With this quote, Descartes is saying that the mind and body are separate because he has two distinct ideas of the body and the mind and the body is not a thinking thing as he is but an extended substance. Another point to Descartes argument is that the mind and body are different due to one being indivisible and the other being divisible. Descartes writes “a body, by its very nature, is always divisible. On the other hand, the mind is utterly indivisible” (53). Here is saying that there are ...
He does not rely on the religious system views that much. The big question for Locke is this: How do we know that a testimony, “Which claims to be from God, is in fact from God?” (IV 16.14). He was not sure if God existence was truthful, or was it someone making things up.in other words, we do not know exactly if when someone claim about God is it truthful or not, it is there a ways to figure this out, religious person might just be making false accusations. This why the reason he does not quite mention religion throughout his essay. On the other hand, when Descartes talks about the idea of God’s existence he seems to imply that we are all born with the thought of God in our mind. In order to proof the existence of God, Descartes begins to classifying the truth or false ideas in his minds he formed. Descartes says, “I had of many other things outside myself, as of the sky, the earth, light, I was not much at loss to know whence they came, which seemed to make them superior to me” (Page 185). He was so drawn about question pour it out his minds. When reading further the idea of God was perfection and there was no room for error. God is the cause for the ideas within me, this is reason to believe that God exist, Descartes says. The idea of human beings line of thought about God it cannot occur, unless
Using Strawson’s examination as a guide to Descartes philosophy,i have tried to show how the two issues, of individuation and identity threaten to destroy Descartes’ philosophy of mind-body dualism.
In conclusion, Descartes and Hume believe that one finds the truth through the use of one’s senses. Even though they may be perceived differently and used in memory in different forms. Hume believes that there is no such thing as self. One is ever changing and different in each individual moment in time. While Descartes argues that one is built off of the past and the body and the mind are one. That the body and mind act in sync with one another, whatever the body does the mind directs or understands the task at