Personal identity

Personal identity

It is a notion that you develop about yourself and develop over the progression of your life. It can include features of life that you do not have control over, like where you grew up, your skin color, and the choices you make in life, such as how you spend your time and what you believe in. Some aspects of personal identity are demonstrated by the way you dress and how you socialize with others in the society. Personal identity is faced with several problems like who am I

Locke’s view that we are not mere souls nor substance

Locke considered identity to be based on memory and not on the essence of the soul or body. Locke claims that we are the same individual to an extent; we are aware of the past and future thoughts and actions, in the same manner, we are aware of current theories and actions. If consciousness is this is the thought that goes along with a substance that makes the same individual, then self-identity is only grounded on the repetition of consciousness. It therefore confirms to us that self-identity comprises not the identity of substance but the identity of consciousness. For instance, a person may claim to be a re-creation of Plato, thereby having a similar soul constituent. Nevertheless, one would be the same as Plato if only he processed similar consciousness as Plato’s thoughts and actions. According to this argument, self-identity is therefore not grounded on the soul because one soul might have several personalities. Personal identity is also not grounded on body substance as the body might alter, but the person remains the same. Even animals’ identity is not based on the body, but it is preserved in the identity of life and not substance as the body develops and changes while the identity of people is grounded on consciousness. This thought leads to issues that since self-identity is grounded on consciousness, and only a person can be aware of their consciousness, then judges can never judge and punish the same person or body. Locke says that people can only be judged for the actions of the body because this is what is ostensible to all, but God nevertheless, are only accountable for actions done when they are cognizant of giving defense to unconscious defense..

Locke’s view of self-identity and it’s relation to self, consciousness, and punishment

Lock’s belief of matter is intended to undermine the acceptability of the credence in the existence of the soul. According to him, the soul is philosophically redundant in the survival of human beings and their position in creation. Locke proposes that bodies might be enough for the production of thought. As per Locke, there are four diverse sorts of things: atoms, persons, complex bodies, and living organisms. Locke’s commencement of self-identity grounds it not on substance or body but on consciousness, which is distinct from the soul because the soul might not have a perception of itself as an example of rebirth. He populates another view between the soul and the body; according to him, the body might change, but consciousness never changes. He also articulates that consciousness can be lost if one forgets, but the soul or mind remains unchanged. Under these circumstances, there is the presence of the same soul but a different individual. These assertions amount to the entitlement that or brain is neither essential nor adequate for self-identity over a certain period. He thus concludes that identity is not the body but consciousness. Although the discrepancy between human and person is contentious, Locke’s difference amid the soul, the mind and consciousness are more fundamental. One of the distinctions solves the problem of rebirth. The issue starts with biblical theories proclaiming that we will have the same body at the resurrection as we did in this life. Locke clearly narrates the case of the cobbler and the prince presenting to us the hitches of the renaissance. The instance is that the soul of the leader, together with all its thoughts, is transferred from the body of the prince to the soul of the cobbler after the cobbler’s soul departed. The outcome of this exchange is that the doyen still ponders himself as the prince though he has a new body. According to Locke, the difference between man and person makes it probable for the same individual to show up in a dissimilar body during resurrection and still be the same individual. Locke sees the prince because during the resurrection, he will be meted with the reward or punishment that ought to be for the cobbler. Locke states that two things of the same kind can not be at the same place at the same time. By kind, Locke incorporates substances, modes, and relations. Substances exist independently, whereas modes and relations rest on substances for their survival. There are three substances; God, bodies, and intellect. Locke’s ideal enables God, soul, and body to be in the same place at the same time because each of them belongs to one of the diverse kinds of substances.

Reid’s criticism of Locke’s theory of self-identity

Thomas was in contrast to Locke’s memory philosophy and attempted to compare it to absurdity. He critiqued the philosophy on various grounds. First, Reid thought that self-identity was an issue that could not be determined via operations, and it could only be determined by something not divisible. He attributed this thinking to Locke’s view of confusing evidence of something with the thing itself. Thomas came up with the officer paradox in an effort to reduce Locke’s philosophy to absurdity. Another objection is founded exactly on the relation between identity and morals. He argued that there is no way identity can be grounded on consciousness that is altered from time to time. A human being can never remain the same from one time to the next, and as the right and justice of reward and punishment are based on self-identity, no human would be responsible for their actions. But such an insinuation is irrational, a view supported by Butler expanding the point to embrace contemplations of personal concern. However, Reid and Locke concur on the view that identity founds specific patterns of concern, both sensible and ethical. Reid claims that identity is the foundation of all privileges, compulsions, and accountability, and the concept of it is static and specific. They just disagree on the meaning of identity and its components. If Locke’s views are taken to be right, then it has to accommodate radical changes to human practices of responsibility attribution and prudential deliberation, but making such amendments would be irrational, then his thoughts are correct, and Locke’s philosophy can never be right. Reid’s objection to Locke’s identity theory is wrong because, as per norms, if you are not conscious, you can not be in a position to make critical decisions. Even in instances when someone is not conscious, the soul is still functional, although one cannot self-identify themselves.