Examples Of Locke In Memento

In the movie Memento, Leonard Shelby is unable to form new memories, with recent events fading within a few minutes. He has no way of knowing what he has done or what has happened since his accident, and according to Locke and Hume this means he is no longer one individual, rather changing constantly with his memories. On the other hand Sartre claims that a human is the essence he has created for himself. In the following paper I will argue that Locke and Hume are correct and that Sartre’s view of existentialism does not apply to the case of Leonard Shelby. However, I will also suggest that even if we were to accept Sartre’s views it still would not provide adequate proof that Leonard Shelby is still the same individual.
According to Locke the concept of
ones self lies in their memories, without your memories he claims you would not be the same person. If you were to wake up without any of your past memories Lock would say that you have become an entirely new person. In the case of Leonard Shelby, who constantly loses his memories, he is a new person every time a new memory is made and an old one lost. This means throughout Leonard’s lifespan he will encompass a huge amount of different persons, while the Leonard from before the accident will remain a completely separate individual. This is furthered by Locke’s belief that personal identity is a matter of continuity within the mind, and how he considered a persons identity to be directly correlated to that persons consciousness, and not bound to either the substance of the body. I believe that Locke makes valid points about how a person is made up of the memories and experiences they hold, and because Leonard Shelby can no longer hold memories this must mean that he is perpetually stuck in a loop. This loop is a constant cycle of becoming a new person every moment and never being able to maintain the same self. For example, if Leonard were to take a trip to Europe and return to the United States without any knowledge of his trip this must mean that the Leonard that went to Europe is a different individual than the one that returned to the United States.
Viewing the case of Leonard from another perspective, rather from the view of David Hume, we see that Leonard still does not qualify as one continuous being.
In Hume’s understanding of the self we see that a person is nothing more than a bundle of interconnected perceptions, or memories, linked together in a relatively linear path. We can continue to expand upon this idea by interpreting the ideas of Hume by stating that a self is just a cohesive group of thoughts, and if a person were to have two separate group of thoughts that are accessed individually that would make that person two separate individuals. In the case of Leonard Shelby he is only able to form bundles of memories lasting a few minutes. This means each group of memories that Leonard forms constitutes a new individual. Taking into account the views of Hume I can make the assumption that Leonard Shelby is not the same person he was before the accident, since the memories from before his incident are separate from the memories he makes in the present that means that he is at the minimum two separate individuals. If we count each string of memories he makes as this new individual that means that he becomes a new person multiple times a
day.
However according to Sartre a human being has no pre-determined nature or purpose, and that humans do not need to be anything specific. Sartre states that first of all man exists, he then encounters himself, then continues to make a place for himself in the world. Sartre says that once these things are completed then a person can define who or what they are. The problem with his argument in relationship to Leonard Shelby lies in his second step. Although Leonard exists and does hold a place in this world he constantly encounters himself, unable to maintain grasp on his current form for more than a few minutes. Since Sartre says a man can only define what he is once these three things are completed that means that either Leonard can never define himself as human being, or that with each new batch of memories he is redefining who he is. Furthermore if is constantly redefining himself as a new entity with each new string of memories that means he becomes a new individual multiple times a day. This coincides with both Locke and Hume’s view of the self in determining whether or not Leonard Shelby has one self, or multiple selves.
As David Hume and Locke suggest, it is possible to conclude that Leonard Shelby does not constitute as one singular self, without the ability to make new memories is the claim he is not the same constant self can be made. As well, according to Sartre a man is only defined when he has completed a path to get there, and we can come to the conclusion that Leonard is constantly forming a new path therefore he is becoming a new self.