Personal identity in philosophy.
Philosophy is mostly interested in personal identity from metaphysical perspective. How do we know that we are the same person throughout our life? When does a personhood begin? Where is the self – is it in our brain, is our self an immaterial soul/egos or is it our consciousness?
Where is the self?
The existence of soul.
The view of religions on this subject is unsurprisingly unifying – the soul is our identity. As the soul is something that can be measured and proved it 's difficult for this view to participate in the debate, thus this view is called a Simple view.
Mind-body dichotomy or Cartesian dualism.
Cartesian dualism name so after Rene Descartes believes that mind and body are two different substances coexisting together or near each other in the body. Descartes ' reasoning regarding this subject can be summarised as – the only thing that I can be sure of is my thought, I 'm not sure that my body exists, therefore my body and mind are distinct things.(Rene Descartes “Discourse” part IV.) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm
Nowadays this considered as being a logical fallacy as by thinking of himself as a thinking thing Descartes was merely stating his thoughts about himself and not his real properties. An analogous example can be the following:
…show more content…
The idea of consciousness has also been present in many eastern religions, thus a question arises if and how can consciousness exist after the death of a body? And also – where consciousness comes from, is it internally human or die animals have consciousness?
Is our self is simply out material body?
As a growing organism which is constantly undergoing change how can we determine whether a physical body in the past is the same thing is this physical body in the present. Throughout our life we develop from foetus to a grown up human being that constantly ages, like any other organic material, how can we know that we are still the same thing, if our self is contained only in constantly changing physical
Where does our personal identity come from? Each individual has its own characteristic, which shapes person identity. The characteristic of person creates its own unique identity. Identity is base on person past, present and future. There are many articles, which talk about identity, and many researchers have their own unique thoughts.
In the sixth meditation, Descartes postulates that there exists a fundamental difference in the natures of both mind and body which necessitates that they be considered as separate and distinct entities, rather than one stemming from the other or vice versa. This essay will endeavour to provide a critical objection to Descartes’ conception of the nature of mind and body and will then further commit to elucidating a suitably Cartesian-esque response to the same objection. (Descartes,1641) In the sixth meditation Descartes approaches this point of dualism between mind and matter, which would become a famous axiom in his body of philosophical work, in numerous ways. To wit Descartes postulates that he has clear and distinct perceptions of both
Darrow insists that, if existing, the soul, which he explains is often thought of as synonymous with identity, consciousness or memory, would have to appear sometime during a person 's conception. Conception begins with one cell which, when fertilized by another cell, will divide and multiply and eventually lead to a person 's birth. (42) We cannot reasonably say, claims Darrow, that the original cell has a soul. This
In this paper I will explain Elizabeth of Bohemia’s main argument against Cartesian dualism. I will also explain why Churchland rejects Cartesian dualism and her arguments against it and what alternatives she has in mind. At the end I will explain why I think a Cartesian mind is not plausible. Descartes believed in Cartesian Dualism, which is saying that the mind and body are two different things. He says that the body can be divided into pieces but the mind/soul are indivisible.
In this paper, I will look at and criticize John Locke’s account of Personal Identity as well as put forward arguments of my own of what I consider to be the unreliability of that which Locke terms as consciousness in relation to and as a composition of ‘Personal Identity’. Before we can arrive at a discussion of consciousness it is essential to follow Locke’s thought process and see how he arrived at a differentiation between substance, person, self (an alternate term for person used in the latter half of the chapter) and consciousness. It is essential to realize that for Locke personal identity consists in the identity of consciousness. We know this because he says as much in the following passage: “[T]he same consciousness being preserv’d…the
Self, is a dynamic, open system, based on ones actions. King (1981) explains self as Jersild’s (1952) definition that “knowledge of self is a key to understanding human behavior because self is the way I define me to myself and to others. Self is all that I am. I am a whole person. Self is what I think of me and what I am capable of being and doing.
When I try to conceive of the self, I do not think of the mind but bodily behaviour, i.e. physical displays of anger. If we cannot gain an impression of the mind, then we cannot possess an idea of the self. The assertion that Descartes has a clear and distinct perception that he is “... a thinking thing” is therefore made redundant and his conceivability argument is
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.
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.
Personal identity is one of the first and most fundamental questions of philosophy. David Hume tackles this question in “A Treatise of Human Nature” where he was concerned with the idea of the self or the absence of the idea of the self. It is important to note that we can’t talk about Hume without first acknowledging the idea of empiricism. It is one of the most common epistemological positions and it holds that one’s senses are reliable judges of truth and falsity. This simply means that humans are able to rely on their senses in order to understand the world.
The issue of identity has been a field of interest for many researchers. They have presented many perspectives on identity, on its shifting nature, politics and complexities. To understand this complexity, it is important to establish opposites like I and him (Said, 1978; Gregory, 1994; Thrift, 1995). Identification of oneself is always related to this fact ‘who I am not’ and other people easily accept the identity of an individual which may not match to his (individual) identity even.
The body is a rug or a coat that has been pulled over the spirit, and the soul to blind you from the truth. The body is an animal, and its rulers reside in the unseen or the spirit. The body can become tied into spirit once the body engages in the
It retains the ability to relate to itself and to God. So, the human self (ideally) properly relates its internal factors to each other while also relating to the external power that constituted
He provides criteria of personal identity through time that consist of the necessary and sufficient conditions for the survival of persons. He considered personal identity to be based on consciousness (memory and experience) and not on the physical matter of the body. He argued that many people hastily identify the physical brain with consciousness. The body and the brain are physical objects; therefore, it is subject to change whilst consciousness consistently remains the same. Consequently, personal identity is not located in the brain, but in consciousness.
The metaphysicality of personal identity is abstract in the context that questions endurance and its relation to memories, experiences, and our principles. It questions how much these attributes are specific to maintaining a personal identity that endures through time. According to Locke, memory constitutes personal identity; so therefore, as long as we remember a specific event in our life, we’re the same people as we were then. Stated by Locke, the lack of ability to unite consciousness results in the same man, but not the same person. For me, personal identity endurance doesn’t necessarily come from memories, moreso learning experiences.