Choose any two of the philosophers that we read in Unit 2. Recap each philosopher’s main view about consciousness/the self/personal identity. Explain at least one difference between the two philosophers’ views and state which view you prefer. Then, offer an argument (i.e., evidence) against the view that you reject.
If you need to re-familiarize yourself with the central issues on personal identity, I suggest that you review the following (20-minute) podcast: The Self and Personal Identity. Additional information regarding personal identity can also be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/
- Start with making a careful summary of two of the philosophers we read in Unit 2. What were their main concepts and definitions, what were their distinctions? How did they imagine that the self was different from the brain or different from the mind? Restate their theory and include "direct quotes", specific references from their work.
- Explain carefully how these views compare and contrast. Be sure to identify and explain at least one difference between the philosophers' views. How do they define a key concept or make a major distinction differently?
- State which view you prefer.
- Offer an argument against the view that you reject.
People wake up and go on with the rest of their day, yet how many take a moment in their hectic lives to think about who they are? What defines them or their “self”? The renowned philosophers, John Locke who authored the An Essay Concerning Human Understanding and David Hume who authored A Treatise of Human Nature, tackled those very questions. In Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689), he discusses how he perceives personal identity, and ultimately, he comes to the conclusion that self identity is found in our consciousness or memory. In Hume’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1738), he also discusses what he believes is personal identity, and he states that “self” is simply a bundle of perceptions. I personally prefer Locke’s point of view on self identity because it is seen more often in reality amongst people, and I can relate to the concept in my own life.
Locke’s view of identity existing in our memories and consciousness is more logical if you spend time thinking about it. We are shaped by our environment, experiences, and events in our life, and I believe in order to prefer Locke’s view on the “self”, you would also need to believe in the concept of tabula rasa. It makes sense that Locke’s feels this way about identity because he was the first to champion the term “tabula rasa” which essentially states that people are born as a “blank slate” that is then formed according to experiences. For example, people aren’t born to be criminals, billionaires, or leaders. They end up there through their experiences, choices, and environment. This same idea is seen in Locke’s idea of “self”. Without our memories, we become a blank slate. For example, if you were to lose your memories today, do you think your significant other, friends, and others would see you as you or as someone new? Life is like a boulder you find; everything you do, think, feel, and experience are all chisels to your boulder. People and all of their friends are not the same person and will never be the same person, but at one point, “living in distant ages, and of different tempers,'' all of them “may have been the same man”. They were all at one point untouched, malleable personalities; they were open to the world’s unforgiving hands. However, their separate lives are what defined them to be unique people. Locke strongly disagrees that the soul is the pivotal characteristic in self identity, and I whole-heartedly agree because what defines soul? How can you differentiate souls? In Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he captures this refutation in a simple example of a man’s soul and hogs. In summary, if a man’s soul was transferred to a hog, nobody would be able to differentiate the soul of a hog and of a man. In addition, nobody would claim that the “hog were a man”. Locke’s view on self-identity is much more rational to me due to how easily I can support this with my own experiences and thoughts.
On the other hand, Hume’s take on personal identity in his Treatise of Human Nature differs in how self identity is even defined. He argues a couple of connected claims: “the essence of the mind [is] unknown to us” and there is no such thing as the “no self” or “no ownership” perspective. Hume has inferred that we all believe that our souls or our being is a stable entity, but in addition to that, he also states that regardless of how intricately we inspect our experiences or our beings, we don’t actually view anything beyond impermanent feelings and senses. Hume has also stated that we are never aware of ourselves because we only know what we are experiencing at any given moment. This is where the two philosophers and their opinions diverge. Hume believes that this relationship between our feelings and thoughts can be supported by memory, but it lacks evidence of a core that joins them. He applies this to his argument of self-identity because he states that “self” is just a bundle of perceptions. He believes that humans have a pattern of mistaking correlation with causation and that our views on self-identity is us mistaking the existence to the associated factors. However, I believe that adopting this idea of self-identity just being a bundle of perceptions makes philosophy so much harder to enjoy. The idea of “self” being a bundle of perceptions makes the assumption itself a bundle of perceptions and can therefore be discredited on those same terms. In addition, memory and self-identity is the closest to evidence I believe we can get. We see Locke’s idea in reality when people experience any memory loss or deterioration. Hume’s beliefs on “self” is sensible to an extent, but philosophers don’t have to think in the exact same way, and it isn’t the philosopher’s job to make everyone happy.
Philosophers are thinkers, and all philosophers don’t always agree with each other. Locke’s view is vastly different from Hume’s view because Locke believes that self or a human’s identity is found in their consciousness or memories. However, Hume doesn’t believe that humans are qualified to make that assumption or decision about self identity. Locke believes in the role of memories in creating an identity, and he disagrees that it has anything to do with the soul or body. He has stated that people cannot be directly self-aware because they are only receiving what is going on in their environment. Hume stated, “It cannot, therefore, be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea.” This can be interpreted that there is no big, unified way of viewing ourselves, so it is hard to explicitly say that we have stable, static identities or anything of the sort. These two philosophers were influential in their own way, but to me, Locke’s perspective is more logical.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume/.
“Online Library of Liberty.” The Works of John Locke, Vol. 1 (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Part 1) - Online Library of Liberty, https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/locke-the-works-vol-1-an-essay-concerning-human-understanding-part-1.
“Personal Identity.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Apr. 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity.
SparkNotes, SparkNotes, https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hume/themes/.
Strawson, Galen. “Hume on Personal Identity - Oxford Handbooks.” Oxford Handbooks - Scholarly Research Reviews, 31 July 2017, https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199742844.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199742844-e-23.