The purpose of this essay is to show that John Locke’s direct memory view of personal identity results in a person to be and not to be the same person at the same time. I will salvage Locke’s direct memory view of personal identity to avoid this contradiction. First, I will state Locke’s direct memory view of personal identity. Second, I will state Reid’s objection to Locke’s direct memory view of personal identity. Third, I will state an indirect memory view of personal identity. Fourth, I will show that Reid’s objection does not hold against the indirect memory view of personal identity. Fifth, I will apply both memory views of personal identity to a murder case in which a drunk driver cannot remember the act of killing a pedestrian and …show more content…
For instance, a boy decides to steal a toy, but is caught and punished for his misdeed. In his mid-twenties, the boy enlists in the military as a young officer. The young officer accomplishes many feats during his career. Eventually, the young officer reaches the rank of general at an old age. The young officer is the same person as the boy, because the young officer can remember himself as the boy. The general is the same person as the young officer, because the general can remember himself as the young officer. Since the general is the young officer at a different time and place and the young officer is the boy at a different time and place, it must follow by transitive relation that the general is the young officer and the boy but at a later time. However, based on Locke’s direct memory view of personal identity, the general is not the same person as the boy, because the general cannot remember himself as the boy. Therefore, the general is and is not the same person as the boy at the same time. This is a manifest contradiction that results from Locke’s direct memory view of personal identity. I will present an indirect memory view of personal identity that is more align with our intuitions that does not result in a …show more content…
Person B-at-t2 is responsible for all the actions of person B-at-t3, persons B-at-t4, and person C-at-t5, since person B-at-t2 is the same person as persons B-at-t3, person B-at-t4 and person C-at-t5 over time. Persons A-at-t1 is the same person as person C-at-t5 over time, because person A-at-t1 can remember himself as persons C-at-t5; hence, person A-at-t1 is responsible for all the actions of person C-at-t5. Person A-at-t1 is not responsible for any of the actions of person B-at-t2, person B-at-t3, and person B-at-t4, because person A-at-t1 cannot remember himself as person B-at-t2, person B-at-t3, and person B-at-t4. In other words, the sober person A-at-t1 is not responsible for killing the pedestrian, because person A-at-t1 cannot remember himself as person B-at-t2 who killed the pedestrian. Even though person
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The Lockes began their journey with the thought of having children despite not being able to conceive naturally. They decided to turn to vitro fertilization. Thanks to the new science of being able to freeze embryos they were able to have a daughter and two twin boys. That 's all they needed to be able to start the family that they wanted. Despite this they had to keep paying 600 dollars a year to keep embryos they no longer needed.
One’s memories are everything. An individual that lacks unique memories drifts through existence without a sense of direction. Unfortunately, the vulnerability of one’s memories still remains constant. In many literary works, several notable narrators expose this often overlooked susceptible side of memories. In Brian Falkner’s, Brain Jack, the author illustrates the possible aftermath when a being is able to alter certain character defining memories of an individual.
Think of the ‘loose’ and popular concept of identity as common sense. If you were to go to a river, step in, then run around a little then go back to that river and step in you would think, “well, I am no mathematician. But I think I count well enough to know I have stepped in this river twice.” Or if you were to get your car battery replaced with a brand new battery, you do not say that you got a new car. These are examples of the ‘loose’ concept of identity.
We are like chameleons, we take our hue and the color of our moral character, from those who are around us” (John Locke). John Locke was a philosopher and physician in the late 1600’s. His ideas and beliefs about individual rights and a government by the people influenced the formation of the government of the United States, creating the basis for the freedom enjoyed by those citizens today. John Locke was born in England in 1632. His parents were Puritans, and he was raised that way.
There is no question that the makeup of one’s identity is complex and often impossible to distill. Difficulty aside, the investigation into identity acts as one of the principal themes in many of English playwright William Shakespeare’s works. He is perhaps best known for delving into identity in Hamlet where the words “To be or not to be? That is the question,” are uttered by the protagonist in a fit of confusion (Hamlet act III sc. 1 ln. 64). Beyond Hamlet, identity also manifests
Q14. The memory criterion mentioned that A is B if A can remember B's experiences or thoughts. For instance, I can remember being 9, so I'm the exact same person I was when I was nine. But, actually, you can find problems with this memory criterion: it's unlike the transitivity of identity and don't include forward looking psychological connections, such as that between present intention and future action, as determinants of personal identity. Using example to spell out, the charge that the memory criterion conflicts with the transitivity of identity was illustrated by the famous case of the schoolboy, the young lieutenant and seniors general (Reid 1975).
In this essay, I will argue that identity theory, which is the view that the mind is the brain based on a posteriori, is not true using the multiple reliability argument (77). A posteriori refers to the philosophical theory that truth is based on having an experience (85). In this paragraph I will argue against identity theory using multiple reliability. According to identity theory, each mental type must be identical to each brain type (77).
Sovereignty and Right in the Eyes of Hobbes and Locke The state of nature is the common thread between Hobbes and Locke. It is a realm of reality that would ensue if society was disbanded and human nature dictated man’s actions. Hobbes and Locke considered the state of nature and how humans acted without outside forces as indicators to show how politics should work.
Identity matters because it differentiates one person from another. Without an identity, a human would not be a human, because it is crucial to life. Each person has a distinct identity, which they are known for. But, as people grow, they notice and pick up on others’ habits, and make those habits their own. Those habits thus form a person’s identity.
Having an identity defines a person’s personality and traits. It also tells other people where the person learned his traits and morals. In the world, everyone is born with the same identity; however, a unique identity is flexible and changeable because a person can change his or her identity based on the environment he or she interacts with, as demonstrated by Guy Montag from Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. Montag’s identity first changed when he was disturbed by a traumatic and revealing event. As a fireman in an alternate dystopian reality, Montag was happy with his job burning books.
Locke (1632-1704) In order to gain the proper perspective and fullest understanding of philosophy of property will now examine the works of John Locke. Locke’s life The Philosopher John Locke was born on the 29th of August of 1642 in Somerset England, the son of a Parliamentary Army Captain; and was able to be educated at the churches college at Oxford, focusing on both philosophy and medicine. He was initially a traditionalist and taken in by the philosophies set down by Hobbes; only to later develop his own arguments and theories to explain the proper workings of mankind and the world.
The argument of whether or not a human has a soul has been argued throughout centuries. Derek Parfit discusses two separate theories of personal identity, Ego Theory and Bundle Theory. The argument of which present a more accurate account of personhood is very hard to determine. The Ego Theory has some flaws such the soul is separate from the body and is a immaterialist object within us. Bundle Theory is reinforced and proven by the split-brain case, however it can lead to the argument that there is no self.
Derek Parfit is a British philosopher who specialises in problems of personal identity and he proposes that we separate the notions of identity and survival. He is one of the most prominent philosophers in the struggle to define the self. Parfit’s 1971 essay “Personal Identity” targets two common beliefs which are central to the earliest conversations about personal identity. The first belief is about the nature of personal identity; all questions regarding this must have an answer. Between now and any future time, it is either the case that “I shall exist or I shall not”.
For many years, the issue of self-identity has been a problem that philosophers and scholars have been to explain using different theories. The question on self –identity tries to explain the concept of how a person today is different from the one in the years to come. In philosophy, the theory of personal identity tries to solve the questions who we are, our existence, and life after death. To understand the concept of self-identity, it is important to analyze a person over a period under given conditions. Despite the numerous theories on personal identity, the paper narrows down the study to the personal theories of John Locke and Rene Descartes, and their points of view on personal identity.