Additional notes: Other things not mentioned in this article is the idea of thinking things in associations, which on this article does a more robust analysis for the same premises of said bellow article by Namita Nimbalka
Locke’s Argument “On Personal Identity”
John Locke, a lecturer in moral philosophy and his father being an attorney on the British parliamentary side within 17th century, presented a philosophical article “On Personal Identity” that asserts personal identity our own consciousness. Locke provides descriptions for defining the consciousness of a person, as well comparing it between physical substance, such whether an individual is a man or a woman. In the end of his article, Locke emphasizes how the concept of consciousness can be applied in law for punishing and rewarding people. Although the article “On Personal Identity” has a lot of credibility for our present perceptions in personal identity, Locke did not provide how much memory is required for a person to forget in order ourselves to be a different person from the past. In this essay, we will summarize Lock main observations and applications of his personal identity “theory”, as well to the main problems and issues that the concept has for today.
Locke defines personal identity our continuity of consciousness. The continuity of consciousness is all the memories that we can still remember. Locke describes it more specifically “As far as this consciousness can be extended backwards to any past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that person” (Locke, 12). Therefore, a person who cannot remember a part of his own memory is not his “own past” anymore because they are not conscious to him.
After Locke gives his definition of personal identity, Locke illustrates how consciousness contradicts other personal identity theories, such as physical substance and reincarnation. For instance, people believe that any change in physical substance changes the identity of person. Locke argues that the identity doesn’t change as long as the consciousness of that person remains in there. He implies that even “upon separation of this little finger, should one’s consciousness go along with the little finger, leaving the rest of the body, it is evident that the little finger would be the person, the same person” (Locke, 15). In other words, if the little finger can recall all the memories that he lived before with the rest of the body, it is the same person, even if it is all alone from the rest of the body. In addition, Locke wants to clarify that there may always be a possibility for a man having the same physical substance, but to not be the same person (consciousness). If a prince own consciousness was moved in a sudden moment to a body of a cobbler, “He would, then, be the same cobbler to everyone other than himself” (Locke, 14). In this occasion, the prince would not identify himself as the person of the cobbler, even if he is inside the man of the cobbler, because he can’t recall any other memories other than the ones he was as a prince. Lastly, there are different religions that believe reincarnation, a process to exist our own self again. However, reincarnation is one of those examples which consciousness is lost beyond the power of retrieving it again (Locke, 13). Locke states that even if a person could assert that he was Nestor who has died long time ago, he must be “conscious of any of the actions of Nestor, and he would then find himself the same person with Nestor” (Locke, 14). Since religions state that reincarnation is a process where our own past consciousness is lost, we will not be the same person anymore.
After Locke describes the differences between other personal identity theories, he tries to give different examples in the end on how his theory can be applicable for law enforcement. Firstly, he states that we shouldn’t punish a person that could not be aware of his own consciousness. For example, “To punish Socrates waking for what Socrates sleeping thought…would not be right” (Locke, 15). According to Locke, punishing for Socrates sleeping is not right because he was not aware of his own consciousness. However, a person who does good deeds and philanthropic work at the present time can be punished for a crime he did 20 years ago as long he can remember the crime that he did 20 years ago. People will argue that he is a different person from what he was in the past. However, Locke thinks it differently. Locke states that “distance of time or change of substance would not make the same consciousness two persons, the same consciousness unites those distant actions into the same person” (Locke, 12). In contrast, if a person recently in his life has done a killing spree around city hall and cannot remember it, Locke would argue that we can’t punish him because he only “owns all the actions of that thing as its own, as far that consciousness reaches, and no farther “(Locke, 15). If the serial killer cannot recall by his consciousness the act of killing people, he does deserve to not be punished because he does not “own that act”.
Other than Locke provided the definition and applications to his own concept of personal identity, Locke didn’t provide us how much of our past consciousness is needed to be lost in order to become a different person. Locke admits that there are people whose consciousness is interrupted by forgetfulness and many people who have the habit to no reflect their past selves (Locke, 12). As we stated previously, he also admitted that there are different states where a person can loose their consciousness and never retrieve it again, such as Alzheimer and Dementia mental diseases that we have today. To all the moments of forgetfulness, Locke didn’t provided to what amount of degree our forgetfulness will make us a different person. Another problem of his definition of personal identity is that anything we can’t remember does not apply to us. Even if thousand people recall us that we killed thousand people. Even if 10 years ago, if the culprit was caught, he could testify that he remembered the killing spree. As long as he could not remember it now, Locke states that the person itself doesn’t deserve to be punished because we only punish fair the man but not fair to the present person itself. These gaps and controversial examples that Locke didn’t provide enough information for them show the different problems if consciousness was the only source for identifying our personal identity.