John Locke Personal Identity Essay

1291 Words3 Pages

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. …show more content…

Consciousness is seemingly always during the present and memory, a past entity. However, Locke responds to Reid and claims that one can have a memory of something without having consciousness of that memory. Reid continues to argue that identity must be something that stays exactly the same over time, however, our consciousness is in a state of constant fluctuation, thus our personal identity would be endlessly changing. Locke counters Reid, however, arguing that our consciousness is constantly changing and that we could still be very much conscious when we are sleeping. Furthermore, our personal identity is not restricted by our consciousness however, our capability to be conscious of former memories. Although Locke successfully responds to Reid’s first criticisms, Reid presents the analogy of the brave officer which highlights key contradictions that effectively subvert Locke’s account of personal …show more content…

Reid’s argument is that a young boy (p1) could be thrashed for a minor offence (t1), and later become a brave officer (p2) who becomes decorated for bravery on the battlefield (t2). Lastly, we have an aged general (p3), who looks back on his career (t3). The brave officer does remember the time he was thrashed for the minor offence thus p2 at t2 remembers being p1 at t1, Locke affirms that p1=p2. In addition to this the general remembers his exploits on the battlefield, thus p2=p3. However, the general does not remember being punished for a minor offense and p3 at t3 does not remember being p1 at t1 thus we must conclude that p1 is not p3. However we must conclude that identity is a transitive relation, thereby if A is identical to B, and B is identical to C, then A must be identical to C. Therefore, according to Locke’s theory the general both is and isn't identical to the young boy. Locke attempts to respond to Reid, arguing that one's consciousness extends back from the brave officer to the young boy, and thus the general would, in fact, be identical to the boy, due to ‘ancestral relation’ However, although Locke’s response may seem successful, Reid’s criticism could be slightly modified in order the create more problems for Locke. If we were to imagine the general to be senile, so he remembers being the young boy, however doe snot have any recent memories so does not

Open Document