Christopher Kettyle
Professor Kaspar
Philosophy 3000
24 October 2016
Chisholm v Locke
Identity
Roderick Chisholm's theory and John Locke's theory on identity consists on what their fundamental belief is about identity, while giving examples supporting this idea. Multiple philosophers have explanations about identity but by comparing Chisholm's and Locke's theory you will get a better idea about this metaphysical problem. By doing a comparison this will show you the ideas of these philosophers. I will try to prove that Locke has a clearer more logistical idea than Chisholm. John Locke says that personal identity is a matter of psychological continuity. Chisholm says that the identity of a person is a perfect identity wherever it …show more content…
He confirms that it is impossible that a single person should be equally the same and different. Chisholm has considered that personal identity which is perfect in its own kind; also, the natural measure of person identity which is imperfect. He tells a story of a ship called Theseus which disagrees with Locke. Chisholm's says if you change a singularity in a thing it stays the same. The ship of Theseus is a ship with a wooden hull that cruises along the ocean, the ship frequently goes in and out of the harbor. One day a piece of the ships' hull falls off and is replaced with a piece of aluminum. As the months go on the ships' hull is eventually made up of only aluminum along with every other part of the ship which had to get raplaced. Is this new ship with a new hull the ship of Theseus, yes it is a survivor of the original ship. A good argument that apposed this is what happens if you take all of the old parts of the ship of Theseus and put them back together would you have two ships of Theseus. Another problem is an even simpler situation a child playing with blocks. He builds a house with ten blocks, uses it for his toy soldiers disassembles it, builds many other things. Then he goes back and builds the same exact house. Is the house the same as the first one? Feigning identity Monday= AB, Tuesday=BC, Wednesday=CD. AB that is the thing made up of A and B, BC is the thing made up of B and C, and CD is the thing made up of C and D. AB constituted the table on Monday BC constituted the table on Tuesday and CD constituted the table on Wednesday. Although AB, BC, CD are different things they all constitute the same table. This would have shown what Hume called a "succession of objects" if we consider spatial location for the three wholes we see that the table was occupied by AB on Monday and the same for the rest of the days. So
Professor Kaspar
Philosophy 3000
24 October 2016
Chisholm v Locke
Identity
Roderick Chisholm's theory and John Locke's theory on identity consists on what their fundamental belief is about identity, while giving examples supporting this idea. Multiple philosophers have explanations about identity but by comparing Chisholm's and Locke's theory you will get a better idea about this metaphysical problem. By doing a comparison this will show you the ideas of these philosophers. I will try to prove that Locke has a clearer more logistical idea than Chisholm. John Locke says that personal identity is a matter of psychological continuity. Chisholm says that the identity of a person is a perfect identity wherever it …show more content…
He confirms that it is impossible that a single person should be equally the same and different. Chisholm has considered that personal identity which is perfect in its own kind; also, the natural measure of person identity which is imperfect. He tells a story of a ship called Theseus which disagrees with Locke. Chisholm's says if you change a singularity in a thing it stays the same. The ship of Theseus is a ship with a wooden hull that cruises along the ocean, the ship frequently goes in and out of the harbor. One day a piece of the ships' hull falls off and is replaced with a piece of aluminum. As the months go on the ships' hull is eventually made up of only aluminum along with every other part of the ship which had to get raplaced. Is this new ship with a new hull the ship of Theseus, yes it is a survivor of the original ship. A good argument that apposed this is what happens if you take all of the old parts of the ship of Theseus and put them back together would you have two ships of Theseus. Another problem is an even simpler situation a child playing with blocks. He builds a house with ten blocks, uses it for his toy soldiers disassembles it, builds many other things. Then he goes back and builds the same exact house. Is the house the same as the first one? Feigning identity Monday= AB, Tuesday=BC, Wednesday=CD. AB that is the thing made up of A and B, BC is the thing made up of B and C, and CD is the thing made up of C and D. AB constituted the table on Monday BC constituted the table on Tuesday and CD constituted the table on Wednesday. Although AB, BC, CD are different things they all constitute the same table. This would have shown what Hume called a "succession of objects" if we consider spatial location for the three wholes we see that the table was occupied by AB on Monday and the same for the rest of the days. So