JOHN LOCKE VIEW ON PERSONAL IDENTITY

INTRODUCTION

Personal identity theory is the philosophical confrontation with the ultimate questions of
our own existence, such us who we are, and is there a life after death. The issue of personal
identity and its determents has always been of concern for many philosophers. Questions are
raised as to what does being the person that you are, from one day to the next, necessarily consist
of. This sort of analysis of personal identity provides a set of necessary and sufficient conditions
for the identity of the person over time. In the modern philosophy of mind, this concept of
personal identity is sometimes referred to as the diachronic problem of personal identity. The
synchronic problem is grounded in the questions of what features or traits characterize a given
person at one time. There are several general theories of this identity problem. In this paper, the
views of John Locke and a criticism of the theory of personal identity are presented.

Locke`s most thorough discussion of the persistence of person can found in book 2,
chapter 27 essay (``Of Identity and Diversity``), though Locke anticipates this discussion as early
as book 1, chapter 4, section 5. And Locke refers to person in other texts, including the Second
Treatise of Government. The discussion of persons and their persistence conditions also features
prominently in Locke`s lengthy exchange with Edward Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester.

Locke begin ``Of Identity and Diversity`` by first getting clear on the principle of
individuation, and by setting out what some have called the place-time-kind-principle, which
stipulates that no two things of the same kind can be in the same place at the same time, and no
individual can be in two different places at the same time. With some of the basics of identity in
place, Locke posits that before we can determine the persistence conditions for atoms, masses of
matter, plants, animals, men, or persons, we must first know what we mean by these terms. In
other words, before we can determine what makes atoms, masses of matter, plants, animals, men,
or persons the same over time, we must pin down the nominal essences or general ideas for these
kinds.
 John Locke offered a very rich and influential account of persons and personal identity in
``Of Identity and Diversity``, which is chapter 27 book 2 of his Essay concerning Human
Understanding. He added it to the second edition in 1964 upon the recommendation of his friend
William Molyneux. Locke`s Theory was soon after its publication discussed by his
contemporaries and has influenced many present-day discussions of personal Identity.
Distinctive about Locke`s theory is that he argues that the notion of a person is to be
distinguished from that of a human organism, or a ``man`` to use Locke`s term, and that of a
substance. By distinguishing the notion of a person from the traditional notions of a human
organism and substance, Locke can address moral questions of accountability without having to
take a stance on the question of whether the underlying ontological constitution of a person is
material or immaterial.

C. 1 AGAINST CARTESIAN THEORY

John Locke (29 August 1632-28 October 1704) was one of the philosophers who were
against the Cartesian theory that soul accounts for personal identity. Locke holds that personal
identity is a matter of psychological continuity. Arguing against both the Augustinian view of
man as originally sinful and Cartesian position, which holds that man innately knows basic
logical propositions, Locke posits an ``empty`` mind, a tabula rasa, which is shaped by
experience, and sensations and reflections being the two sources of all our ideas.

Locke also create a third term between the soul and body, and Locke`s thought may
certainly be mediated by those who, following a scientist ideology, would quickly identify the
brain with consciousness. Therefore, personal identity is not in the brain, but in consciousness.

C. 2 SAME (OVERALL) LIVING SYSTEM

Locke holds consciousness can be transferred from one soul to another and that personal
identity goes with consciousness. Consciousness can be transferred from one substance to
another, and thus, while the soul is changed, consciousness remains the same, thereby preserving
the personal identity through the change. On other hand, consciousness can be lost as in utter
forgetfulness while the soul or thinking substance remains the same.

Though the distinction between man and person is controversial, Locke`s distinction
between the soul or the thing which thinks us, and consciousness is even more radical.
 Locke explicitly tell us that the case of the prince and the cobbler (Feser, 2007, p. 66-68)
shows us the resolution of the problem of resurrection. The case is one in which the soul of the
prince, with all its princely thoughts, is transferred from the body of the prince to the body of the
cobbler, the cobbler soul having departed. In the prince and cobbler thought experiment, Locke
invites us to imagine that, overnight, a prince has all his memories transferred to a cobbler’s
body and the cobbler has all his memories transferred to the prince body. When the cobbler body
wakes up, the consciousness inside thinks he`s prince.

Locke thinks that we would say that the prince is inhabiting the cobbler`s body and vice
versa. If this is so, continuity of a living system is not sufficient for personal identity, because
here, there has been a continuity of living system (the bodies of the prince and the cobbler) but
identify has changed (the cobbler-living system now is the prince and vice versa).

C. 3 THE SOUL

Locke`s rebuttal: Locke gives two reasons why we should reject the soul as the basis for
personal identity.

1. The soul cannot be the basis for personal identity because we can imagine the
same consciousness being transferred from one soul to another- for example,
the prince`s consciousness could be transferred to the cobbler`s body and his
soul.
2. A soul might be shared between two or more persons, as in something like
reincarnation.

C. 4 CRITICS

There are several philosophers who criticized the Lockean memory theory and stated that
it was circular and illogical.

Joseph Butler accuse Locke of a `` wonderful mistake``, which is that he failed to

recognize that the relation of consciousness presupposes identity, and thus cannot constitute it. In
other words, I can remember only my own experience, but it is not my memory of an experience
that makes it mine; rather, I remember it only because it`s already mine.
 Thomas Reid was against Locke`s memory theory and tried to reduce it to absurdity. He
criticized his theories for several reasons. Firstly, Reid believed that personal Identity was
something that could not be determined by operations, and personal identity should be
determined by something invisible. Also, he stated that Locke`s main problem was confusing
evidence of something with the thing itself.

Both Reid and Butler, then, wind up rejecting Locke`s relational view in favor of
substance-base-view of identity. What Butler and Reid retain in common with Locke, though, is
the belief that identity ground certain of our patterns of concern, both prudential and moral. What
they disagree over is just what identity consist of. So, if Locke`s view was right, say Reid and
Butler, it would require a host of radical changes to our practices of responsibility attribution and
prudential deliberation.

Although Locke disagrees that the implications of his view are crazy, he does agree with
the basic methodology. So, while he admits that he made some suppositions that will look
strange to readers, he also pains to show that our practices are already in conformity with
implications of his view.

LOCKE`S THEORY OF PERSONAL IDENTITY; THE MAIN THEORY

Having rejected the three above theories or personal identity, Locke offers his own theory
of personal identity. In VCE Philosophy Locke`s theory of personal identity is a key component
of Area of Study 2, so it`s important you get a good understanding of the theory.

Locke argues that continuity of consciousness in the form of memory is what makes a
person the same person overtime. Consider the following example:

Wayne remembers how he graduate in Junior High School in 2021. According to Locke,
Wayne in 2023 is the same person in Wayne on 2021- because he remembers being Wayne in
2021.

CONCLUSION

By the time of his death, Locke was justifiably proud of his accomplishments in
epistemology, political philosophy, educational theory, and religious inquiry., but also has good
reason for concern because many of his deepest convictions were not accepted by most of his
contemporaries, several of his works were under fire, and significant issues in his thought remained
unsolved. He was able to declare that he knew of no work which had explained property better
than two treatises. Yet they had been largely ignored, and their understanding of the principles of
the revolution of 1688-9 has been rejected by almost all his contemporaries. They were only to
receive only very limited support before the end of the eighteenth century, and the support that did
receive came largely from the critics of the establishment among the theologically heterodox and
republican. He had come to be feted for his epistemology by many in France, England, and
Holland. The essay was already influential, and it was to become profoundly influential in the
eighteenth century in ways that are still being charted. Yet it was under the significant attack for
fostering heresy, and in 1703 it was suppressed by his own university, Oxford. The grounds for
the demonstrability ethics, arguably to Locke the most significant claim of the essay, were being
questioned in Locke`s own lifetime in ways that at the very least he could not see how to answer
adequately by demonstrating an afterlife and punishments for sin by the light of reason alone, give
his agnosticism about substance and God`s attributes.

REFERENCE

1. Butler J. ` Of Personal Identity` in The Analogy of Religion.

2. Feser E. Locke. Oxford: One world
3. Locke J. Of Identity and Diversity. In: Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
4. Reid T. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man.
5. Shoemaker D, Personal Identity and Ethics.
6. Uzgalis W. John Locke, Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2007.
7. Marikar Vega, ACLC College of Ormoc, 2023.
8. Marikar Vega, Body and Conclusion.