Unit 4 The Problem of Personal Identity
Key Questions Where does your identity come from? Is there an enduring self that remains the same over time? What is the basis for claiming the existence of an enduring self?
Elderly killer thought experiment Elderly Murderer Activity Consider the following situation: 50 years ago John Smith committed a horrific crime when he was 14. John was an angry young man who resented the world and hated most people. He was a failure in school and had been convicted of several minor crimes while still in his early teens. He was accused of murdering four people who taunted him because of his diminutive size. At 14 he was convicted of first degree murder. The evidence showed that he meticulously planned the murders and arranged so that his victims would suffer before they died (he essentially tortured them). At the time, the state had no death penalty on the books, so John was sentenced to the maximum penalty allowed by law - life in prison without possibility of parole. John at first had a hard time adjusting to prison life. In his first five years of incarceration he was involved in three fights, one of which permanently disabled another inmate. During this time, John used the prison weight room and exercise facilities to build himself up. Within three years, John went from a man who weighed barely 120 pounds who would bench press only 30 pounds to a muscle bound person weighing 210 pounds who could bench press nearly 300 pounds. Eventually, John earned his high school equivalency degree and began taking classes (in prison) from the local community college. It was in one of these classes, while John was in his mid twenties, that he met professor Xavier. Professor Xavier taught introduction to philosophy and was also a minister in a local church. John did well in professor Xavier s class and the two men struck up a friendship. During non-school related visits that professor Xavier made to the prison, he gave John a Bible and encouraged him to read it. John did and on his thirtieth birthday John converted to Christianity. Encouraged by professor Xavier, John enrolled in the four year degree program offered at the prison from the local state university. After three years, John graduated with a BA in philosophy with highest honors from the university. Following graduation, John enrolled in an on-line program to earn is legal doctorate. When he was 40, John earned his JD and passed the state bar exam. For the next 10 years, he worked (from within prison) with a legal defense organization that re-examined death penalty cases that had been decided on the basis of faulty evidence and fraud. When he was 52, John published a book on legal ethics. In the next few years he became a well know authority in that field. From the time he was 18 until today, John has been a model prisoner and a roll model to younger inmates. For the past five years John has operated a prison ministry which focuses on the need for prisoners to develop the same love and acceptance of others that John himself models on a daily basis.
Elderly killer thought experiment 3 2 1. John has recently filed a motion to be paroled. You are on the parole board. Will you grant the motion or not? What is your basis for accepting or rejecting the motion? Please be specific. 2. Consider the question above but compress the events into a ten year timeline. The story begins when John is 14 and ends when he is 24. Does this change your decision, and if so how? 3. Consider the question above, but change John s age at the time the crime was committed to 20. Adjust all other events accordingly. Does this change your decision, and if so why? 4.Consider the question above but change the following. John was born and raised in the Smith tribe, an indigenous people who live in a warm part of Western Antarctica. In the Smith tribe, horrific ritual murder is celebrated at a passage to manhood. All cultural value and the notion of right and wrong are shaped by this belief and Smith children are raised from an early age to believe that becoming an independent adult means participating in a ritual murder. John lives with the Smith people until he is 14, then moves to the US. All other aspects of the story remain the same 5.Consider the question above, but with the following changes. Shortly after John entered prison he was beaten severely in a prison fight. During this fight he lost consciousness and was in a coma for three weeks. When he came out of the coma he had lost all memory of his life prior to awakening. John will never regain any of these lost memories (stipulated). John s prison record is exemplary for the next five years and he applies for parole when he is 20. 6.Consider the situation above but with the following changes. Shortly after his murderous rampage John had a stroke which rendered him brain dead. Surgeons were able to transplant the brain of one of John s victims into his body so that he would survive. John s prison record is exemplary for the next five years and he applies for parole when he is 20. 7.Consider the situation above with the following changes. John had a perfectly normal and happy childhood. He fell asleep one nights and while sleeping went out and committed the horrible murders. When he awoke he had no memory of what he had done, nor would he ever acquire those memories (stipulated). John s prison record is exemplary for the next five years and he applies for parole when he is 20.
Theories Substance stuff theories Psychic continuity - Locke Illusion theory - Hume Self as social construction
Body Theory =
Soul theory
Psychic continuity theory Our self awareness is our consciousness If man is a living body, an animal of a certain shape, then what is a person? A person is an intelligent thinking being that can know itself as itself the same thinking thing in different times and places. (accessed 12.12.13 at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/supplement.html) The continuity of our consciousness is the defining characteristic of the self... Since consciousness always accompanies thinking, and it is that which makes every one to be what he calls self, and thereby distinguishes himself from all other thinking things, in this alone consists personal identity, i.e. the sameness of a rational being: and as far as this consciousness can be extended backwards to any past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that person; it is the same self now it was then; and it is by the same self with this present one that now reflects on it, that that action was done (A) The modern formulation of this theory originates from the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) Locke discussed the nature of personal identity in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding In making his argument, Locke distinguishes between the man and the person. The SEP describes this distinction as follows: If man is a living body, an animal of a certain shape, then what is a person? A person is an intelligent thinking being that can know itself as itself the same thinking thing in different times and places. In this essay, Locke argues that the self awareness described above constitutes our Consciousness and this consciousness and its continuity is what constitutes the self. Locke responds to the body theory of personal identity by arguing that physical parts of the body would not be considered the self (or the person) unless they are united with the consciousness: Locke argues that it is this contiguity of consciousness that forms the legal definition of persons according to our legal systems Locke demonstrates the logic of this concept of personal identity in his famous thought experiment of the Prince and the Cobbler. In this experiment, the mind of a prince is magically inserted into the body of a cobbler. In this case, locke argues, the person with the cobbler s appearance is the prince, and that only his body, not his personal identity, has changed. A corollary to Locke s concept of personal identity is his idea that the human mind at birth is a blank slate or tabula rasa. In Locke's philosophy, tabula rasa was the theory that the (human) mind is at birth a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences. The notion is central to Lockean empiricism. As understood by Locke, tabula rasa meant that the mind of the individual was born "blank", and it also emphasized the individual's freedom to author his or her own soul. Each individual was free to define the content of his or her character - but his or her basic identity as a member of the human species cannot be so altered. It is from this presumption of a free, self-authored mind combined with an immutable human nature that the Lockean doctrine of "natural" rights derives. (Wikipedia) Tabula rasa has implications for discussions of free will and also for questions of group identity (think about how Locke might address the question of gender and racial identity.) To sum up then, Personal identity is defined by the continuity of our consciousness. Persons are the same so long as they possess the continuous collection of memories of conscious states.
Psychic continuity theory Locke rejects body theory because the physical parts of the body are not considered the self unless they are united with the consciousness Self depends on consciousness, not on substance....thus every one finds that, whilst comprehended under that consciousness, the little finger is as much a part of himself as what is most so. Upon separation of this little finger, should this consciousness go along with the little finger, and leave the rest of the body, it is evident the little finger would be the person, the same person; and self then would have nothing to do with the rest of the body (B). Responsibility is thus bound to consciousness not the body Persons, not substances, the objects of reward and punishment. In this personal identity is founded all the right and justice of reward and punishment... (C)
Terri Schiavo Left to right. All accessed on 10.21.15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/terri_schiavo_case#/media/file:schiavo.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/terri_schiavo_case#/media/file:schiavo_catscan.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/terri_schiavo_case#/media/file:schiavograve.jpg
Problems for psychic continuity theory Reid s degradation of memories objection (described well here) A = B = C A = B, B = C A = C The Scottish Philosopher Thomas Reid (1710-1796) argues that the memory theory of personal identity because our memories over time degrade. On p. 184 of Rauhut the example is given of a boy(y) Who becomes a soldier in adulthood (M) and a general in his old age (G). While G remembers M and M remembers Y, G does not remember Y which seems logically inconsistent. This problem is remedied by the idea of Indirect memories -memories that I cannot recall at this moment, but that a previous version of myself was able to remember directly. Thus to fix this problem we must alter the memory theory to say that to be the same person, one must have at least an indirect memory link to his former self
Problems for psychic continuity theory False memories Who am I when I am not conscious? What about babies? What about people in vegetative states? False Memories - Memories that I have that are not true - but that I remember clearly and shape who I am. Yet another problem is the fact that there are some instances in my life where I do not have direct or indirect memories - like when I was asleep last night. It seems absurd to say that the person slumbering in my bed was not me, but the person who woke up this morning was me. A further problem arises with the idea of change over time. We radically change as people over time and yet the memory theory says we are still the same person. This seems contradictory. Thus the argument is that we are the same person not only if we remember the past, but also retain some of the psychological characteristics of our past selves. (memory thus becomes a necessary but not sufficient condition for identity) Lefty and righty - What if one hemisphere of your brain is transplanted into one head and the other into a second. Both have your memories, but which is you? By the Psychological approach both are, but this is a logical contradiction because two things with separate existences cannot be identical to one thing. (from the SEP) The Human animal problem - We start and often end life as entities with no memories or awarenesses. Does this mean that the embryo us and the vegetative state us is not actually us are actual not us because they lack the memory connection necessary for consistent personal identity?
The Self as a Social Construction 1. Is it possible to be a self made person? Discuss your answer within your groups using specific examples where possible. 2. Is individualism a social construct? If so, what factors in our society push us in this direction? 3. Solomon (the author of the article) argues that until modern times, our idea of individualism would have ben unintelligible. Why might this be the case? 4. Can you think of a value you hold that is not asocial construct? 5. How has modern technology impacted our definition of the self? Provide specific examples if possible A corollary to Locke s concept of personal identity is his idea that the human mind at birth is a blank slate or tabula rasa. In Locke's philosophy, tabula rasa was the theory that the (human) mind is at birth a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences. The notion is central to Lockean empiricism. As understood by Locke, tabula rasa meant that the mind of the individual was born "blank", and it also emphasized the individual's freedom to author his or her own soul. Each individual was free to define the content of his or her character - but his or her basic identity as a member of the human species cannot be so altered. It is from this presumption of a free, self-authored mind combined with an immutable human nature that the Lockean doctrine of "natural" rights derives. (Wikipedia) This reinforces an autonomous, self created self. 20th century theories would challenge this.
Charles Taylor My identity is defined by the commitments and identifications which provide the frame or horizon within which I can try to determine from case to case what is good, or valuable, or what ought to be done, or what I endorse or oppose. In other words, it is the horizon within which I am capable of taking a stand Accessed on 10.29.15 at http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60558.pdf George Herbert Mead The self, as that which can be an object to itself, is essentially a social structure, and it arises in social experience. After a self has arisen, it in a certain sense provides for itself its social experiences, and so we can conceive of an absolutely solitary self. But it is impossible to conceive of a self arising outside of social experience.accessed on 10.29.15 at http://www.brocku.ca/meadproject/mead/ pubs2/mindself/mead_1934_18.html The Self as a Social Construction A corollary to Locke s concept of personal identity is his idea that the human mind at birth is a blank slate or tabula rasa. In Locke's philosophy, tabula rasa was the theory that the (human) mind is at birth a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences. The notion is central to Lockean empiricism. As understood by Locke, tabula rasa meant that the mind of the individual was born "blank", and it also emphasized the individual's freedom to author his or her own soul. Each individual was free to define the content of his or her character - but his or her basic identity as a member of the human species cannot be so altered. It is from this presumption of a free, self-authored mind combined with an immutable human nature that the Lockean doctrine of "natural" rights derives. (Wikipedia) This reinforces an autonomous, self created self. 20th century theories would challenge this.
Arguments for Social Construction Value judgements arise from social context Self relies on thought, which depends on language, which is learned socially Our significance lies in connection to community (Marx, Hegel, Heidegger from Solomon article)
David Hume and the Illusion of an enduring self There is nothing that constitutes an constant and enduring self Bundle Theory - An object consists of its properties - nothing more When we introspect, we find that our consciousness is simply a bundle of rapidly changing impressions - memories, thoughts, images etc. Illusion Theory Hume described what he called the Bundle Theory in his Treatise on Human Nature published in 1739 According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more There neither can there be an object without properties nor can one even conceive of such an object For example, bundle theory claims that thinking of a pencil compels one also to think of its use, its shape, the smell of the wood when it is sharpened, its color, the softness of the eraser, etc. Thus, the theory asserts that the pencil is no more than the collection of its properties. Specifically, there is no substance in which the properties inhere - there is no essential pencil (in the Platonic sense) In a sense - the word pencil is simply shorthand for a collection of properties. Applying this idea to people, Hume reasons that when we turn inward and examine our own consciousness - we find only experience - memories, thoughts, images etc. The self, according to Bundle Theory, is nothing more than the collection of these experiences at any one particular time. (#1 from the document) Thus we are justified in believing that there are experiences, but not that there is a continuing experiencer - any more than the idea that there is an pencil separate from the collection of its properties. (highlight #2) Put another way, we have no reason to believe that there is anything persisting through time that underlies or unifies these experiences. Just experiences - nothing more. (#2 from the document) Instead of persons we have in Hume s words - Bundles of Ideas Another aspect of the Illusion theory of persons is the idea of continuous change As the text indicates, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus reasoned that It is not possible to step twice into the same river. William James (1842-1910 American philosopher and psychologist)used the river as an analogy to our consciousness, arguing that our consciousness is like a river - never the same thing twice
I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement. Our eyes cannot turn in their sockets without varying our perceptions. Our thought is still more variable than our sight; and all our other senses and faculties contribute to this change; nor is there any single power of the soul, which remains unalterably the same, perhaps for one moment (top 2).
David Hume and the Illusion of an enduring self The self is then nothing more than a collection of these experiences at any one particular time Thus there is experience, but not a persisting experiencer The self is thus a convenient grammatical construction that has no existence in reality Illusion Theory Hume described what he called the Bundle Theory in his Treatise on Human Nature published in 1739 According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more There neither can there be an object without properties nor can one even conceive of such an object For example, bundle theory claims that thinking of a pencil compels one also to think of its use, its shape, the smell of the wood when it is sharpened, its color, the softness of the eraser, etc. Thus, the theory asserts that the pencil is no more than the collection of its properties. Specifically, there is no substance in which the properties inhere - there is no essential pencil (in the Platonic sense) In a sense - the word pencil is simply shorthand for a collection of properties. Applying this idea to people, Hume reasons that when we turn inward and examine our own consciousness - we find only experience - memories, thoughts, images etc. The self, according to Bundle Theory, is nothing more than the collection of these experiences at any one particular time. (#1 from the document) Thus we are justified in believing that there are experiences, but not that there is a continuing experiencer - any more than the idea that there is an pencil separate from the collection of its properties. (highlight #2) Put another way, we have no reason to believe that there is anything persisting through time that underlies or unifies these experiences. Just experiences - nothing more. (#2 from the document) Instead of persons we have in Hume s words - Bundles of Ideas Another aspect of the Illusion theory of persons is the idea of continuous change As the text indicates, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus reasoned that It is not possible to step twice into the same river. William James (1842-1910 American philosopher and psychologist)used the river as an analogy to our consciousness, arguing that our consciousness is like a river - never the same thing twice
The identity, which we ascribe to the mind of man, is only a fictitious one, and of a like kind with that which we ascribe to vegetables and animal bodies. It cannot, therefore, have a different origin, but must proceed from a like operation of the imagination upon like objects (4)
The whole of this doctrine leads us to a conclusion, which is of great importance in the present affair, viz. that all the nice and subtile questions concerning personal identity can never possibly be decided, and are to be regarded rather as grammatical than as philosophical difficulties... All the disputes concerning the identity of connected objects are merely verbal, except so far as the relation of parts gives rise to some fiction or imaginary principle of union, as we have already observed.
Heraclitus (535-475 BCE) It is not possible to step twice into the same river... it scatters and again comes together, and approaches and recedes
The Illusionary Self and Buddhism Key Buddhist Concepts (from the Four Noble Truths) 1. Life is suffering 2. Suffering is caused by desire 3. To end suffering end desire Accessed on 10.30.15 at http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/anicca.asp
Accessed on 10.30.15 at http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/anicca.asp But what is the nature of desire? We desire stability, solidity and permanence But, The doctrine of anicca holds that: All of existence is in a constant state of change - nothing is permanent or unchanging. And anatta insists on The denial of a permanent self, as well as the refusal to treat persons as referring to anything real and permanent (accessed on 12.17.13 at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mindindian-buddhism/) Thus to avoid suffering we must acknowledge that everything, even the self, is impermanent and ever changing
Accessed on 10.30.15 at http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/anicca.asp Regard this phantom world As a star at dawn, a bubble in the stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud a flickering lamp - a phantom- and a dream From Houston Smith World Religions Accessed on 10.30.15 at http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/anicca.asp
Problems for illusion theory It violates our practical notions - we act today on the assumption that we will be in the future. Why are you in this class? Punishment makes little sense if this theory is correct - why shouldn't the elderly killer go free - he is a different person from the person who killed. But... There is no logical contradiction in illusion theory!
Hume on the Problems of Locke s memory theory V. For how few of our past actions are there, of which we have any memory? Who can tell me, for instance, what were his thoughts and actions on the 1st of January 1715, the 11th of March 1719, and the 3rd of August 1733? Or will he affirm, because he has entirely forgot the incidents of these days, that the present self is not the same person with the self of that time; and by that means overturn all the most established notions of personal identity? In this view, therefore, memory does not so much produce as discover personal identity, by shewing us the relation of cause and effect among our different perceptions. Illusion Theory Hume described what he called the Bundle Theory in his Treatise on Human Nature published in 1739 According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more There neither can there be an object without properties nor can one even conceive of such an object For example, bundle theory claims that thinking of a pencil compels one also to think of its use, its shape, the smell of the wood when it is sharpened, its color, the softness of the eraser, etc. Thus, the theory asserts that the pencil is no more than the collection of its properties. Specifically, there is no substance in which the properties inhere - there is no essential pencil (in the Platonic sense) In a sense - the word pencil is simply shorthand for a collection of properties. Applying this idea to people, Hume reasons that when we turn inward and examine our own consciousness - we find only experience - memories, thoughts, images etc. The self, according to Bundle Theory, is nothing more than the collection of these experiences at any one particular time. (#1 from the document) Thus we are justified in believing that there are experiences, but not that there is a continuing experiencer - any more than the idea that there is an pencil separate from the collection of its properties. (highlight #2) Put another way, we have no reason to believe that there is anything persisting through time that underlies or unifies these experiences. Just experiences - nothing more. (#2 from the document) Instead of persons we have in Hume s words - Bundles of Ideas Another aspect of the Illusion theory of persons is the idea of continuous change As the text indicates, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus reasoned that It is not possible to step twice into the same river. William James (1842-1910 American philosopher and psychologist)used the river as an analogy to our consciousness, arguing that our consciousness is like a river - never the same thing twice