According to page 285 on Introducing Philosophy, self-identity is defined as, “The way you characterize yourself, either in general or in particular” that “self-identity requires self-consciousness” (285). There are some philosophers that believe the self-identity is what makes you the same person over time, and some who believe that one is not the same person over time. Because there are many questions that are asked about the self-identity, different philosophers had different views on what they believe what the self really is. There are also different questions that rise when it comes to self-identity, such as, “What is it about you without which you wouldn’t be you” or “What is it that allows us to be individual people at all?” (286) However,
…show more content…
Another philosopher by the name John Locke also presents his view on self-identity. Unlike some other philosophers, John Locke was against the Cartesian theory which states that soul accounts for personal identity. Locke argues that our self-identity is to be found in the continuity of our consciousness instead of our bodies. And just like Descartes, John Locke sees self-consciousness as the main factor to self-identity. John Locke holds that personal identity is a matter of psychological continuity. He considered personal identity to be founded on consciousness, and not on the substance of either the soul or the body. Although his idea on the main factor of self-identity is the same as Descartes, he does not agree with Descartes view about identity remaining the same. He argues that identity does not rely on having the same soul because over times our souls can be replaced by other souls. Locke and Descartes differ in ideas in the part where soul and consciousness is distinguished. Locke’s main argument was that “personal self-identity is based upon self-consciousness, in particular, upon memories about one’s former experience” (292). Locke believes the memory is what establishes a self-identity because one can’t hear another’s thought and also vice …show more content…
When comparing Locke’s view with Descartes view, Locke’s view seems more reliable because it helps us to know and knowledge self-identity in terms of consciousness without talking about the previous soul. Unlike Descartes and Locke, one philosopher by the name David Hume completely undercuts their views on self-identity. David Hume believes that there was no such thing as a self. Unlike Descartes and Locke, Hume chose to use his own personal consciousness as the basis of his denial that there is no such thing as a self. Hume believes that any idea must be borrowed from an impression and that there is no enduring self of which we are aware. Because he argues that no impression is persistent, he states that there cannot be any persisting ideas of the, “self”. He knowledge’s that we do not really have a self. He argues that self-conscious is only aware of thoughts and feelings that we don’t have a specific impression of the self. Hume’s idea of self-identity seems unreliable because self really does exist. A self-identity is what makes a person who they are. Hume’s overall idea on the self is that the idea is a friction. He states that it is a friction because humans are never aware of any enduring self, that we never justify that we are the same person over periods
Another philosopher by the name John Locke also presents his view on self-identity. Unlike some other philosophers, John Locke was against the Cartesian theory which states that soul accounts for personal identity. Locke argues that our self-identity is to be found in the continuity of our consciousness instead of our bodies. And just like Descartes, John Locke sees self-consciousness as the main factor to self-identity. John Locke holds that personal identity is a matter of psychological continuity. He considered personal identity to be founded on consciousness, and not on the substance of either the soul or the body. Although his idea on the main factor of self-identity is the same as Descartes, he does not agree with Descartes view about identity remaining the same. He argues that identity does not rely on having the same soul because over times our souls can be replaced by other souls. Locke and Descartes differ in ideas in the part where soul and consciousness is distinguished. Locke’s main argument was that “personal self-identity is based upon self-consciousness, in particular, upon memories about one’s former experience” (292). Locke believes the memory is what establishes a self-identity because one can’t hear another’s thought and also vice …show more content…
When comparing Locke’s view with Descartes view, Locke’s view seems more reliable because it helps us to know and knowledge self-identity in terms of consciousness without talking about the previous soul. Unlike Descartes and Locke, one philosopher by the name David Hume completely undercuts their views on self-identity. David Hume believes that there was no such thing as a self. Unlike Descartes and Locke, Hume chose to use his own personal consciousness as the basis of his denial that there is no such thing as a self. Hume believes that any idea must be borrowed from an impression and that there is no enduring self of which we are aware. Because he argues that no impression is persistent, he states that there cannot be any persisting ideas of the, “self”. He knowledge’s that we do not really have a self. He argues that self-conscious is only aware of thoughts and feelings that we don’t have a specific impression of the self. Hume’s idea of self-identity seems unreliable because self really does exist. A self-identity is what makes a person who they are. Hume’s overall idea on the self is that the idea is a friction. He states that it is a friction because humans are never aware of any enduring self, that we never justify that we are the same person over periods