Locke Personal Identity
Outline and critically discuss Locke’s theory of personal identity.
John Locke laid down the systematic groundwork of personal identity in the
study of modern philosophy. Locke highlights his approach to the
problem of personal identity in Chapter XXVII of the book II in An Essay
concerning Human Understanding. This paper will explore the features that
persuaded Locke to treat the problem of personal identity and then go on to
analyse Locke’s theory in light of these factors. It will then inspect the
implications of his theory. Furthermore it will contain a brief assessment of the
theory’s historical significance.
In exploring the reasons as to why Locke treated the problem on personal
identity, it is …show more content…
crucial to understand that his views arose from the ones presented
by the French philosopher Rene Descartes. Descartes was a Cartesian and
thought that each person was a unified non-extended mental substance whom
was unchanged by experience (Skirry, 2006). Descartes believed in the existence
of innate ideas, and the foundation of knowledge believed truth to be located in
these ideas (Descartes, 2007, p 13-16). Locke saw many of the struggles that
track from this opinion as he himself had an empirical way of thinking, it struck
to him that these might be avoided if it could be revealed convincingly that
innate ideologies are not present. In Book I he argues that they do not exist and
that our theories must be built on experience and he then published Book II to
shed light on the way our concept of personal identity must derive from our
experience (Uzgalis, 2010).
Locke’s view of personal identity in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,
explores the relationship of substances to ones self. He asserts ‘…our specific
ideas of substances are nothing else but a collection of a certain number of
simple ideas, considered as united in one thing,’(Locke, 1690, Chapter XXVII)
implying that an individual’s awareness is not equipped with any unblemished
ideas of substance, and thus can have no instinctual knowledge of its nature.
Furthermore he distinguishes between what he declares to be the conditions of identity. He accomplishes this through the deliberation of ‘Principium
Individuationis’ (Locke, 1690, Chapter XXVII), which explains that the conditions
of identity, for that of masses of matter are distinct from vegetables and animals.
Then raises the question of whether the conditions of identity are somewhat
dissimilar to that of humans. From this viewpoint he elucidates that it looks as
though humans are a type of animal as they too grow and change. Locke states
‘the organization of life that supports nourishment and growth’ (Locke, 1690,
Chapter XXVII) is what makes vegetables, animals, and humans unalike from
masses of matter because we are furnished with the organisation of life.
Locke suggests ‘…consciousness always accompanies thinking, and it is that
which makes every one to be what he calls self, and thereby distinguishes
himself from all other thinking things’ (Locke, 1690, Chapter XXVII). From this
viewpoint it is evident that having consciousness will prevent a man, as long as
his existence continues to be other than what he already is. For example Locke
argues that, if the consciousness (soul) of a person left the body of its informant
and entered another’s it would not be the same person. He uses the example ‘For
should the soul of a prince, carrying with it the consciousness of the prince’s past
life, enter and inform the body of a cobbler, as soon as deserted by his own soul,
everyone sees he would be the same person with the prince, accountable only for
the princess actions but who would say it was the same man?’ (Locke, 1690,
Chapter XXVII). This passage emphasizes that the idea of person is different to
the idea of man, and we know that they are not identical but identity is oneness.
Locke theorizes ‘Self is that conscious thinking thing…which is sensible or
conscious of pleasure and pain, capable of happiness or misery and so is
concerned for itself as far as that consciousness is concerned’ (Locke, 1690,
Chapter XXVII). Thus each person’s consciousness is different, and can never be
identical to that of another. Our thoughts and memories are formed by individual
experience therefore change of consciousness/memory will result in a change in
the person.
Some of the implications of John Locke’s theory of personal identity consist of
problems when people are faced with loss of memory. Locke suggests, failure to
remember, rids them of their identity; an example Locke uses is ‘a total amnesiac
will have identity at an instant if they are conscious, rational and self-aware, but
no identity over time’ (Locke, 1690, Chapter XXVII). Furthermore his theory in
light of people, who have memory loss, isn’t applicable as these individuals carry
the same mind throughout the span of their lifetime. This is also evident when he
says that ‘God would find someone innocent of a crime, if they had …show more content…
forgotten
committing it’ (Locke, 1690, Chapter XXVII). While the framework of
consciousness may appear to be stable, we see the substance is in continuous
flux.
The historical significance of this theory is seen through the influence of Locke’s
book (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding), which has had influence on
other philosophers.
Gottfried Leibnitz was one of the many who was influenced
by Locke’s work, who also criticised his theory. Leibnitz published a rebuttal to
Locke’s work, and in it wrote the following called, A New Essay Concerning
Human Understanding and in this he attacks Locke’s theory, chapter to chapter
he goes on to disproof Locke’s theory (Leibnitz, 1698, p, 13-20). Since Locke’s
theory of personal identity was one of the first to analyse the conception of
consciousness and that of the self, his criticisers such as Leibnitz had a similar
empirical concept of the matter regarding personal identity.
Nonetheless Locke’s theory is well known among philosophical scholars and his
work is greatly appreciated, Having influenced philosophers like Leibnitz it is
evident that his theory is still valid to those today, such as functionalists, who
outline a person in relation to a set of mental functions.
Reference list:
-Descartes, R, (2007), Mediations on First philosophy, Nu Vision Publications, Sioux Falls, SD USA, pp,
7-17.
-Leibnitz, G, (1698), New Essays Concerning Human Understanding, (publisher NA), pp, 13-20.
-Locke, J, (1690), Chapter XXVII, book II, An Essay concerning Human Understanding.
-Skirry, J, (2006), Rene Descartes: The Mind-Body Distinction, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 15 April 2012,
<http://www.iep.utm.edu/descmind/>
-Uzgalis, W, (2010), "John Locke", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), viewed 15 April 2012
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/locke/>.
John Locke laid down the systematic groundwork of personal identity in the
study of modern philosophy. Locke highlights his approach to the
problem of personal identity in Chapter XXVII of the book II in An Essay
concerning Human Understanding. This paper will explore the features that
persuaded Locke to treat the problem of personal identity and then go on to
analyse Locke’s theory in light of these factors. It will then inspect the
implications of his theory. Furthermore it will contain a brief assessment of the
theory’s historical significance.
In exploring the reasons as to why Locke treated the problem on personal
identity, it is …show more content…
crucial to understand that his views arose from the ones presented
by the French philosopher Rene Descartes. Descartes was a Cartesian and
thought that each person was a unified non-extended mental substance whom
was unchanged by experience (Skirry, 2006). Descartes believed in the existence
of innate ideas, and the foundation of knowledge believed truth to be located in
these ideas (Descartes, 2007, p 13-16). Locke saw many of the struggles that
track from this opinion as he himself had an empirical way of thinking, it struck
to him that these might be avoided if it could be revealed convincingly that
innate ideologies are not present. In Book I he argues that they do not exist and
that our theories must be built on experience and he then published Book II to
shed light on the way our concept of personal identity must derive from our
experience (Uzgalis, 2010).
Locke’s view of personal identity in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,
explores the relationship of substances to ones self. He asserts ‘…our specific
ideas of substances are nothing else but a collection of a certain number of
simple ideas, considered as united in one thing,’(Locke, 1690, Chapter XXVII)
implying that an individual’s awareness is not equipped with any unblemished
ideas of substance, and thus can have no instinctual knowledge of its nature.
Furthermore he distinguishes between what he declares to be the conditions of identity. He accomplishes this through the deliberation of ‘Principium
Individuationis’ (Locke, 1690, Chapter XXVII), which explains that the conditions
of identity, for that of masses of matter are distinct from vegetables and animals.
Then raises the question of whether the conditions of identity are somewhat
dissimilar to that of humans. From this viewpoint he elucidates that it looks as
though humans are a type of animal as they too grow and change. Locke states
‘the organization of life that supports nourishment and growth’ (Locke, 1690,
Chapter XXVII) is what makes vegetables, animals, and humans unalike from
masses of matter because we are furnished with the organisation of life.
Locke suggests ‘…consciousness always accompanies thinking, and it is that
which makes every one to be what he calls self, and thereby distinguishes
himself from all other thinking things’ (Locke, 1690, Chapter XXVII). From this
viewpoint it is evident that having consciousness will prevent a man, as long as
his existence continues to be other than what he already is. For example Locke
argues that, if the consciousness (soul) of a person left the body of its informant
and entered another’s it would not be the same person. He uses the example ‘For
should the soul of a prince, carrying with it the consciousness of the prince’s past
life, enter and inform the body of a cobbler, as soon as deserted by his own soul,
everyone sees he would be the same person with the prince, accountable only for
the princess actions but who would say it was the same man?’ (Locke, 1690,
Chapter XXVII). This passage emphasizes that the idea of person is different to
the idea of man, and we know that they are not identical but identity is oneness.
Locke theorizes ‘Self is that conscious thinking thing…which is sensible or
conscious of pleasure and pain, capable of happiness or misery and so is
concerned for itself as far as that consciousness is concerned’ (Locke, 1690,
Chapter XXVII). Thus each person’s consciousness is different, and can never be
identical to that of another. Our thoughts and memories are formed by individual
experience therefore change of consciousness/memory will result in a change in
the person.
Some of the implications of John Locke’s theory of personal identity consist of
problems when people are faced with loss of memory. Locke suggests, failure to
remember, rids them of their identity; an example Locke uses is ‘a total amnesiac
will have identity at an instant if they are conscious, rational and self-aware, but
no identity over time’ (Locke, 1690, Chapter XXVII). Furthermore his theory in
light of people, who have memory loss, isn’t applicable as these individuals carry
the same mind throughout the span of their lifetime. This is also evident when he
says that ‘God would find someone innocent of a crime, if they had …show more content…
forgotten
committing it’ (Locke, 1690, Chapter XXVII). While the framework of
consciousness may appear to be stable, we see the substance is in continuous
flux.
The historical significance of this theory is seen through the influence of Locke’s
book (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding), which has had influence on
other philosophers.
Gottfried Leibnitz was one of the many who was influenced
by Locke’s work, who also criticised his theory. Leibnitz published a rebuttal to
Locke’s work, and in it wrote the following called, A New Essay Concerning
Human Understanding and in this he attacks Locke’s theory, chapter to chapter
he goes on to disproof Locke’s theory (Leibnitz, 1698, p, 13-20). Since Locke’s
theory of personal identity was one of the first to analyse the conception of
consciousness and that of the self, his criticisers such as Leibnitz had a similar
empirical concept of the matter regarding personal identity.
Nonetheless Locke’s theory is well known among philosophical scholars and his
work is greatly appreciated, Having influenced philosophers like Leibnitz it is
evident that his theory is still valid to those today, such as functionalists, who
outline a person in relation to a set of mental functions.
Reference list:
-Descartes, R, (2007), Mediations on First philosophy, Nu Vision Publications, Sioux Falls, SD USA, pp,
7-17.
-Leibnitz, G, (1698), New Essays Concerning Human Understanding, (publisher NA), pp, 13-20.
-Locke, J, (1690), Chapter XXVII, book II, An Essay concerning Human Understanding.
-Skirry, J, (2006), Rene Descartes: The Mind-Body Distinction, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 15 April 2012,
<http://www.iep.utm.edu/descmind/>
-Uzgalis, W, (2010), "John Locke", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), viewed 15 April 2012
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/locke/>.