Locke and Personal Identity
...nnot define a person. However, it must be included as a definition of personal identity because a rock that doesn’t think can never be a person. Locke asks a second question regarding personal identity. He asks what makes someone the same person? To Locke, the answer is simply identity over time. Locke first gives an example of someone that “stripped from all consciousness of the past”(346). He then gives us the example of a pre-existence where there is no recollection. Locke argues that this is a separate personal identity. For Locke, personal identity resides with the ability to recall that he existed and was thinking. He clarifies the issues with the description of a man who believed he was Socrates. He was a rational man so there is no doubt that he is just crazy. Locke also clarifies with stating that the same soul was in other various heroes. Neither of the men knows the previous men, so to Locke there were separate personal identities. For Locke, there is no ability to rationally say that souls cannot come back to new bodies. Given the case, these souls do not recall being the previous man. Locke would argue that these are separate personal identities. It is irrelevant because like the hand being matter, there is no matter of the soul therefore matter is irrelevant when dealing with personal identity. He goes on to discuss a prince’s soul in a cobbler’s body. The body would show that it is the cobbler but Locke states that it is instead the prince because he knows it is he. There is difficulty with Locke’s continuity over time. Surely a faulty memory doesn’t not exclude one’s person from an identity. I can’t remember why I waited till the last minute to do this paper. Given that another soul did not enter my body, my personal identity was not put on hold while I wasted time, though I don’t remember what I did. Locke could counter that it is not that I remember what I did but that there is continuity between those events. It is a good argument provided I never have a drastic personality change. If I change religions, my consciousness is supposed to change. To Locke, I would have to be a different person but we all know that I am not. There is no doubt that continuity over time is important for distinguishing identity but his assertion is difficult to fully acknowledge. Locke asks a third question regarding personal ...