In this essay I am going to be discussingthe question of the persistence ofpersonal identity. Particularly, defending the theory that I think is the best. Therearethreemajor competing theoriesthat are brought upwhen it comes to personal identity. They are the brute-physical, psychological-continuity, and the antichriterialist view. Here,I will be defending the psychological-continuity view because I think this theorybest explains what we call personhood; and I think it gives the most satisfactoryanswer to the question.The psychological continuity theory states that what makes a certain individual who they are is their psychological state (i.e. memories, mental functions); and these mental functions are a product of a functioning physical organ …show more content…
If someone suffers from a form of amnesia such as anterograde amnesia, which results from brain damage and thus affects the brain, he or she loses the ability to create new memories. If someone suffers serious brain injury this can alter their entire personality. This shouldn’t happen if our personality is located in the soul.Moreover, patients who have had the two hemispheres of the brain split, effectively have twostreams of consciousness.These are just a few reasons why we should accept the physicalist view.Now, I want to give an explanation as to why I favor the psychological view of personal identity over the brute physical view. The first reason is that when we think about what it means tobe us, when we would try to describe ourselveswe would talk about our personality, experiences, and memories, which are all psychological features. Ifit is the case that we should identify ourselves our psychological features then this would make sense of people who have their personalities completely altered if they suffer brain damage. If after brain damage someone’s personality is completely different than before the injury are they really the same person? I would say
Personal identity, in the context of philosophy, does not attempt to address clichéd, qualitative questions of what makes us us. Instead, personal identity refers to numerical identity or sameness over time. For example, identical twins appear to be exactly alike, but their qualitative likeness in appearance does not make them the same person; each twin, instead, has one and only one identity – a numerical identity. As such, philosophers studying personal identity focus on questions of what has to persist for an individual to keep his or her numerical identity over time and of what the pronoun “I” refers to when an individual uses it. Over the years, theories of personal identity have been established to answer these very questions, but the
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.
Identity is a group of characteristics, data or information that belongs exactly to one person or a group of people and that make it possible to establish differences between them. The consciousness that people have about themselves is part of their identity as well as what makes them unique. According to psychologists, identity is a consistent definition of one’s self as a unique individual, in terms of role, attitudes, beliefs and aspirations. Identity tries to define who people are, what they are, where they go or what they want to be or to do. Identity could depend on self-knowledge, self-esteem, or the ability of individuals to achieve their goals. Through self-analysis people can define who they are and who the people around them are. The most interesting point about identity is that some people know what they want and who they are, while it takes forever for others to figure out the factors mentioned before. Many of the individuals analyzed in this essay are confused about the different possible roles or positions they can adopt, and that’s exactly the reason they look for some professional help.
Derek Parfit claims that the idea of personal identity (having a unique personality exclusive to one person) is not as important as psychological continuity, which is having an uninterrupted mental connection between the person who you were two weeks ago and the person you are today, at least when reflecting on ones self. His arguments for this view are relatively sound, personal identity is not essential to survival or responsibility, he claims. Also, the thought experiment in which one brain is split into two parts and transferred to two separate bodies stomps all over the idea of personal identity being fundamental to our existence. However, ones personal identity, their idea of who they are, play a crucial role in their emotions and, most importantly, their happiness.
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
Who are we? Most individuals would answer that we are human beings. But consider taking this concept one step further by asking the following: What makes us human beings? What makes each individual person that same person over a period of time? When do we, as human beings, begin to exist and cease to exist? These questions give rise to the problem of personal identity, which is centered on the idea of essential properties. An essential property of any specific thing makes that thing what it is, and if an essential property is changed or is taken away, that specific thing no longer exists. The problem of personal identity asks the following: What are the “essential” properties of human beings? Numerous philosophers have attempted to answer the question of personal identity, contributing to one of three core theories studied in class: Plato’s/Descartes’ Soul Theory, the Psychological Continuity Theory, and the Bodily Continuity Theory. For the purpose of this paper, I claim that the best rationale regarding
This essay has covered the concept of practical identities and their unique characteristic of contingency as well as the foundation of all value in our actions that all rational beings have- moral identity. Reflecting on these ideas, one can relate to the conception of practical identities or moral identity. However, the suggestion of their contingency or non-contingency and their importance in one’s life is questionable. One is led to wonder what the real source of value in one’s action is and the real weight of practical and moral identities in one’s
The problem of personal identity is based around the issue created in the high school reunion scenario. Personal relationships and often legal disputes are built around the knowledge of personal identity; knowing a specific person is the same person from the events of the past. In order to completely explain that a person who existed ten years ago or even yesterday is the same person who exists at this moment, a criterion which demonstrates the elements of personal identity needs to be defined. Three criteria which ...
The first main argument for physicalism, and in this case identity theory, is the argument of neural dependence. This argument states that if mental states were distinct from physical states then they would not be affected when the brain is damaged or manipulated. Since scientific research and observation have shown that they are, then it is logical to conclude that mental states are not distinct from physical states.
Briefly, we can conclude by deduction that body, brain, and soul are not sufficient to explain personal identity. Personal identity and immortality will always cause questions to arise from philosophers, as well as other individuals, and although many philosophers may object and disagree, the memory criterion offers the most sufficient explanation.
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).
Personal identity is more than memory continuum. I agree with Locke that you need memory continuum to be the same person and are necessary in order to exist, but it’s not everything that defines personal identity. However, I don’t think a person is not the same person if they don’t remember certain events. I agree with Hume’s that memory reveals personal identity. Personal identity is composed of bundles of
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:
In conclusion, the formation of one’s identity has many components. Beginning at the onset of adolescence and continuing to expand, grow and form and reform as we live through the struggles or success of life. Many theorists have endeavored to clarify the development of identity formation. However, Erik Erickson offered one significant theory involving the formation of one’s identity. Expounding on Erickson theory, Marcia developed his Identity Status Model according to the existence or absence of crisis and commitments. These four statuses, diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium and achievement can combine in various ways to produce a self. One’s sense of identity is determined largely by the choices and commitments made, therefore, having a well-developed sense of self can provide an individual with insight to their strengths, weaknesses, and individual uniqueness. An individual that finds themselves