PHILOSOPHY - History: Locke on Personal Identity #2
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- Part 2 of 3. What makes you the same person as the little kid growing up a number of years ago? Is the identity of a person tied to the persistence of a body or a soul or something else entirely? Can we even given any explanation at all of the persistence of a person? Michael Della Rocca (Yale University) explores some of the puzzles and problems of personal identity that arise from the revolutionary work of the philosopher John Locke.
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/FiRM/
Here's what I've decided for now. I believe it's our identity that makes us who we are. However because our identities our changed by our memories and experiences, it's impossible to be the same person forever. We constantly change as individuals and as a collective.
I'm gonna back this up with a little spirituality and science. The law of divine oneness suggests that are actions constantly influence those around us. So if our actions affect others, then we constantly create circumstances that not only change us but those around us as well.
Change is also a scientific fact. The universe is constantly changing. As well as the cells in our body, the strength of our bodies and our core values. Change is the natural way of the universe.
So there for I put to you that none of us are ever the same person. As natural beings we're designed to be fluid both physically and metaphysically.
you know what i hate about philosophy is the fact that they use the same bloody word in the same sentence more then 3 times. he might of said mass of matter about 10 times in 30 seconds. it always gets me confused hahaha still a good video though it is, helping me out in philosophy classes.
*might have, not "might of' (there is no such phrase) and 'than' instead of 'then' ('then' is used in a sense of implication or as a result of something else. 'Than' is used to distinguish one thing from another - which is what you're eluding to). These are important distinctions :) Hope this helps.
Michael is such a great instructor, speaker, lecturer, presenter, explainer ... -- what's the right word?
7:42 lmaooo at the mclovin id 😭
But so if Locke is basing the sameness of the earlier and later person on Consciousness alone, then what does he think about crazy people? People with multiple personality disorders or persons with dementia and etc. who seem to experience a change in their consciousness as time moves on, what about them?
Good question.
Locke explains this in his day person - night person' thought exercise. In short his belief is that if people have two different characters and the 'day person' has no memory of what the 'night person' has done then the day person cannot be held responsible for the night person's actions. Further to hold the night person responsible for their actions and punishing them if they do wrong could not be justified as you would also be punishing the day person who had no memory of the actions for which they are being punished.
maybe this is why they’re diagnosed with personality “disorders”.
It frustrates me when I get possessed by Obama too. He should stick to possessing his own body.
brilliant
he's taking a while to explain Locke...
Next video:
-Memory recall is not completely accurate or total. How does Locke explain this? (The breakfast problem)
-If the same memory is found in two people (maybe by duplicating the brain) would Locke say that they are the same person? (The branching problem)
-If (T: person at time) T2 = T1 and T3 = T2 does it follow that T3 = T1? (The brave officer problem)
The best part about all this is that you are still MDR. Greetings! If you read this, I am the Viorica that you know.
In the video it says Locke advances the claim that what makes someone the same person as their previous self is that they can remember the thoughts and actions of the previous self. That seems to fall short of explaining phenomena such as when someone loses all pass memory. Is that somehow a new person, then if they regain their memories sometime later do they change from that new identity back to the previous identity?
I'm also confused by Locke's account; I think it falls short. The Aristotelian and Thomistic notion of the human person as a united hylemorphic substance (body + rational soul) makes a lot more sense to me. In the Aristotelian view, the human being remains the same person, even if they lose their memories, since the individual substance remains the same throughout.
6:37 Hold on, what? Earlier (5:57) we saw that thing A can be composed of all matter that composed thing B, but that doesn't make thing B the same as thing A. Now, it says otherwise.
What a fascinating topic! One question : in Locke 's view, is it theoretically possible for the same consciousness to inhabit as it were two bodies at the same time?
I know it's 5 years late but this sounds like an objection that is raised in the next video!
isn't Descartes' idea of the existence of the mind more closer to a thinking thing/ memory/consciousness as opposed to soul?
No Descartes' mental substance is more of a soul and memory and consciousness came from/ are part of the soul
The ‘thinking thing’ is the soul/substance
I was wondering if anyone could help me with this question.
According to Locke, are we the same person when we are asleep as when we are awake?
We are the same person. Because even when we are sleeping, we still have conscious (in a low level) and we also remember what we dreamt of when we are sleeping. That shows that we have the same consciousness when we are awake and sleeping. So we are the same person.
I would say no, because according to Locke, sameness of person is determined by our memory. Therefore, if we cannot remember being asleep we are not the same person, like in cases of sleep walking where people don't remember what they said or did. However, if we can remember our selves in our dreams, we could claim that we are the same person.
I don't understand what the difference between consciousness and mind is supposed to be, which seems central to Locke's claim.
the mind produces consciousness but is not consciousness in itself
bob polo but then what is the mind?
Tristan Dry It's the container of consciousness. The mind is what holds our thoughts together. For instance, have you ever heard the statement, "many thoughts ran through his mind."
is that what he said or is that an interpretation of what he would say?
@@Tritdry Locke was just wrong. He says that the soul is a substance, material or non-material (he says it doesn't matter), which carries consciousness. The soul is just something he made up as he didn't think thoughts could just hang in the air, dis-embodied. Makes no sense, but he thought the solution to that was that they be carried in the soul, which could be immaterial and hang in the air... just silly, but he had to make his ideas compatible with his religious beliefs.
Consciousness of a person is a continious process in his whole life. So in every space and time point we have a different consciousness. Thus personal identity is an illusion or delusion.
If consciousness is different in each moment it is *not* continuous. But I get what you mean, that was Hume’s view on personal identity for some time.
im sorry but all the beginning explaining the plants is just unnescesarly confusing. You could've started explaining like you did in 8:00 and would've been way clearer
Love it! Thanks
🤔🤔 !!! Interesting stuff
Lockes ideas are intresting but im not sure how they stack against current theories in physics. Considering that all time happens simultaneously. In this analogy person A has always been the same person as person B even though person B has yet to be experienced.
Isn't it obvious that personal identity is based on consciousness? I thought that was just a given. The real question is figuring out what makes two consciousnesses in different points in time the same.
locke believes that what links consciousness across time is connecting memories. if at T2 you can remember things from T1 then you are the same consciousness at T2 as T1
@@sahilbhatoey8007 Yeah, this comment was just about the first part of the video, where Locke's view that identity is based on consciousness is contrasted with others that say it isn't.
so , by locke's perspective , a person having alzheimer is not the same person ??? i'm confused
when someone with alzheimer is slowly losing his memory, that person in losing his original identity at the same time, according to Locke
it's a good video. helped me a lot to understand better..
nothing is understandable
There are people with DID that never have any memories of the time another personality had control. This is the same for that other personality. It feels like they switch their body with someone else for some time. Does this make them two different identities/persons according to Locke?
Yes they would be two different persons.
So, roughly, a person with same memories and cognitve processes as me will be me, as long as there's some kind of continuety between us. It raises two questions then: clones with "copied" memories, and artificial brains in cyborgs as a way to extend the organic life, but without the action of hormonies. These are cases of same identity?
That's qualitatively identical, but not numerically identical. in another word ( the same but different)
RIP Jade.
I don't buy it. This is a new guy.