I. Introduction
When thinking about the self, one is inclined to accept the idea of a personal identity that survives throughout time. This tendency is reflected in substance theory, the belief that the self is not just a collection of properties such as experiences and perceptions, but the vehicle for possessing these properties. The bundle theory makes the opposite argument. The theory claims that the inclinations for a personal identity are natural but flawed, as the self is simply a bundle of perceptions. Both theories have a large amount of support, but the bundle theory better explains the true nature of the individual. While the substance theory is lacking in real evidence for its viewpoint of the self, the bundle theory makes a clear argument through the account of perception.
II. Substance Theory and the Substratum
The idea of substance stems from the Latin word substansia, meaning “something that stands under or grounds things” (Robinson). Substance theorists believe in the necessity of a substance that is able to “stand under” the properties attributed to it. In Categories, Aristotle argued for the idea of a primary substance, which cannot be predicable to anything else (Robinson). Primary substances were “objects of predication” that could take on a number of contradictories; for example, they could shift from hot to cold. Without the substance, the properties would cease to exist (Robinson). Rene Descartes supported this idea, saying, “In general, no act or accident can exist without a substance for it to belong to.”
Locke also believed in this idea that properties must be held by something to exist. He argued for the existence of a substratum that could support these properties (Bennett). The substratum, also kn...
... middle of paper ...
... Life: Two Bundle Views of Personal Identity . "Richmond Journal of Philosophy. 5 (2003): n. page. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
Benovsky, Jiri. "The Self: A Human Bundle and/or a Cartesian Substance?." European Journal
Of Analytic Philosophy. 5.1 (2009): 7-19. Print.
Bennett, Jonathan. "Substratum." History of Philosophy Quarterly. 4 (1987): 197-215. Web. 12
Dec. 2013.
Foster, D.R. "Are There Aristotelian Substances?." Yale Philosophy Review. 1 (2005): n. page.
Web.
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. 1739. Web.
Morganti, Matteo. "Bundles, Individuation and Indiscernibility." European Journal Of Analytic
Philosophy. 7.1 (2011): 36-48. Print.
Robinson, Howard. "Substance." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University,
16 Dec 2009. Web. 12 Dec 2013.
Sider, Theodore. "Bare Particulars." Philosophical Perspectives. 20 (2006): 387-397. Web. 12
Dec. 2013.
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
David Hume explores the issue of what exactly comprises the “self”. Hume states in his Treatise of Human Nature that
According to René Descartes, substance dualism is a dual particular kind of matter that has two kinds of properties. In this case, the two kinds of properties are mental properties and physical properties of human beings. The mental properties are the thoughts of an individual and the physical properties are the extension in space. Descartes explains that a person is not identical to a body; a person can exist without a body because it is not a body. Henceforth, Descartes claims that substance dualism is true. From this point of view, Descartes makes his claim that substance dualism is true in order to make clear what the new science really is about, to explain the new physics of the contemporary period, and to figure out the vitality of the
For individual property to exist, there must be a means for individuals to appropriate the things around them. Locke starts out with the idea of the property of person; each person owns his or her own body, and all the labor that they perform with the body. When an individual adds their own labor, their own property, to a foreign object or good, that object becomes their own because they have added their labor. This appropriation of goods does not demand the consent of humankind in general, each person has license to appropriate things in this way by individual initiative.
Throughout John Locke’s, Second Treatise of Government, he uses several methods to substantiate his claims on the natural right to property. Locke’s view on property is one of the most fundamental and yet debated aspects of his works within his respective view on politics. Locke views property as one of humankind 's most important rights, contending with the right to life and the right to liberty. However, certain claims made by Locke regarding property are may be unfeasible, which could be deduced from the time period in which he lived. Some of Locke’s arguments appear to be carefully considered and well executed, while others lack the equality that Locke strives towards. John Locke’s theory of property, is a somewhat well supported claim
Using this analogy, the person is the “rope” and the “fibres” are the memory connections, and the mental processes they connect. However, as long as the personal is psychological connected, in other words, if the person can remember their childhood memories, then they are the same person. Philosophers reasons the attractiveness of this theory, as unlike bodily and soul views, the identity of the self is not the identity of the body or soul. Therefore, a person would know who they are without examining their body and in case of someone waking up in a different body, they would not conclude they were not the same person. Furthermore, memory view reflects the importance of personal identity, as psychology is more important, both to ourselves and to others, than our bodily
In unit one of Interactions, the authors Ann Moseley and Jeanette Harris showed a number of readings about the idea of the self. The self-concept is an important matter because people change with age constantly and their thoughts change as well. There are many factors that can affect any individual’s thought of self-concept such as growing up, life experiences, friends and family, and meeting new people. Moreover, a number of readings in unit one by different authors showing their experiences and struggles with self-concept such as ethnicities, economy status, and self-esteem issue. I have had similar experiences with several authors, which are, “Zero” by Paul Logan, “Living in two worlds” by Marcus Mabry, and “The Jacket” by Gary Soto.
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.
Descartes and Spinoza appear to hold different perceptions in regard to the existence of substance. However, both scholars have some comparable perceptions of the same in some aspects. They both refer to God as the primary substance. One thing that both Spinoza and Descartes seem to agree in general is the definition of substance. According to Spinoza, a substance is nothing but a thing that subsists in a manner that it does not depend on any other thing for its survival. In the introduction of his work, Ethics, Spinoza illustrates substance as 'what it is conceived through itself and in itself'. He elaborated this to mean that a substance does not require a sense of anything else to exist, which also seem to coincide with Aristotle's interpretations of how a substance exists, that it is independent of all other things. (1).
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).
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:
The concept of the term “self” is a topic that has been analyzed for many years by many people. The self is the whole part of the being that contains the person. This is a very broad topic and although the term is simple it holds a vast amount if information. One of these people is a man by the name of Sigmund Freud. In the paper “The Dissection of the Psychical Personality” written by Freud, uses the term “Psychical Personality,” to explain the human thought processes, thinking and feelings that make up concept of “the self ” part of the person’s personality (Freud, The Dissection of the Psychical Personality, 2004, p. 70). The concept of the structural model of the psyche contains the Id, Ego and Superego, as developed by Freud tries to
Deep in the minds of human beings lies a vast ocean of emotions and experiences. The human mind is often misconstrued and simplified by those who possess one, but delving deeper into the mind and it’s processes you see a whole other world that is veiled beneath the surface. One of the most famous examples of the human mind is the image of an iceberg, what is on the surface is so minimal compared to the immense body that lies underneath. Sigmund Freud was the father of psychoanalysis and believed in the idea of the unconscious and subconscious that help power who we are. Through psychoanalysis Freud began to reclaim the self as an individual and stressed the importance of the external world and it’s direct role with the internal realm of an individual. Although it was originally found to be a sort of therapy for those with mental illnesses, it has an interesting and analytical and philosophical view of the self, and through this spawned new beliefs in philosophy. Through the establishment of the id, superego, and ego, and the past’s affect on the shaping the present state of the self, psychoanalysis reclaims the self for an individual and is successful in doing so.
Self-identity is one of the main themes of philosophy throughout its history. In general, “self-identity” is a term that means thoughts or feelings with which you distinguish you from others, and we use the term in ordinary conversation without a solid concept of “self-identity”. However, arguing about self-identity philosophically, there arise many questions: whether there is any essence of yourself, whether you are the same person as you when you were a baby, whether memory or experience makes you, and what is “self-identity.” To solve these questions, many philosophers have been arguing the topic “self identity” for so long.
Truth of oneself makes it visible when faced with absurd events in life where all ethical issues fade away. One cannot always pinpoint to a specific trait or what the core essence they discover, but it is often described as “finding one’s self”. In religious context, the essential self would be regarded as soul. Whereas, for some there is no such concept as self that exists since they believe that humans are just animals caught in the mechanistic world. However, modern philosophy sheds a positive light and tries to prove the existence of a self. Modern philosophers, Descartes and Hume in particular, draw upon the notion of the transcendental self, thinking self, and the empirical self, self of public life. Hume’s bundle theory serves as a distinction between these two notions here and even when both of these conception in their distinction make valid points, neither of them is more accurate.