What is the true nature of the self?
Does it reside in the soul, the body, or perhaps a combination of both? This age-old question has intrigued philosophers for centuries, each offering different perspectives. Among them, John Locke (1632-1704) stands out with his unique assertion that the self resides in memory. Locke's groundbreaking approach, presented in his seminal work An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), suggests that personal identity is tied to consciousness and memory rather than to the substance of the soul or body.
Locke's Identity Principles
Before delving into Locke’s views on personal identity, it’s essential to understand his general principles regarding the identity of objects. Locke posits two fundamental principles to determine the identity or sameness of things: the time and location principle and the constituents principle.
Time and Location Principle
According to Locke, the identity of an object is determined by its existence at a specific time and place. Simply put, one object cannot exist in two places simultaneously. If two identical chairs are seen in different locations at the same time, they must be two separate chairs. Conversely, if a chair seen in the morning is seen again in a different location later in the day, it is reasonable to assume it’s the same chair, merely moved. Locke sums up this principle as follows:
“It being impossible for two things of the same kind to be or exist in the same instant, in the very same place; or one and the same thing in different places. That therefore, that had one beginning, is the same thing; and that which had a different beginning in time and place from that, is not the same, but diverse.” (Essay Concerning Human Understanding, p.297).
Constituents Principle
Locke's second principle of identity focuses on what objects are made of—their constituents. For non-living things, identity is the cohesion of particles united in any form. However, for living beings, identity extends beyond mere physical cohesion. It involves the continued life and functioning of an organized body. This principle allows for change within the same living being over time. For example, an oak tree that grows from a sapling to a mature tree is considered the same oak, despite the substantial changes in its physical matter. Similarly, a horse remains the same horse throughout its life, regardless of the changes in its bodily particles.
Locke explains:
“He that shall place the identity of man in anything else than like that of other animals, in one fitly organized body, taken in any one instant, and from thence continued, under one organization of life, in several successively fleeting particles of matter united to it, will find it hard to make an embryo, one of years, mad and sober, the same man, by any supposition that will not make it possible for Seth, Ismael, Socrates, etc to be the same man.” (p.300).
These principles lay the groundwork for understanding Locke’s views on personal identity, but they do not fully explain it. To understand Locke’s full view, we must differentiate between the identity of a human being and the identity of a person.
Human Identity vs. Personal Identity
For Locke, human identity and personal identity are distinct concepts. Although these terms are often used interchangeably, Locke argues that they refer to different aspects of existence due to their differing constituents.
Identity of Humans
According to Locke, humans consist of two types of substances: physical (the body) and non-physical (the soul). Human identity, therefore, relates to the physical organization of life and the continuity of the body and soul. Locke views the human body as integral to identity, evident in our immediate responses to physical sensations and experiences, such as pain or pleasure. However, he also acknowledges that this feeling of connectedness to the body is limited to the body’s current state and parts.
Personal Identity
Personal identity, for Locke, transcends mere human identity because it includes consciousness. A person, as defined by Locke, is a "thinking, intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places." This capacity for self-reflection and the continuity of consciousness forms the essence of personal identity.
Locke elaborates:
“Personal identity or the continuing ‘sameness’ of a rational being consists in consciousness alone. Substance cannot be the essence of our personal identity.”
Locke’s distinction underscores that while a human may be defined by their physical and non-physical constituents, a person is defined by their ability to think, reflect, and maintain a consistent consciousness over time. The self, therefore, resides not in the body or soul alone but in the conscious mind that connects past and present experiences through memory.
Locke’s Memory Theory of Personal Identity
Locke’s radical claim that personal identity is founded on memory revolutionized philosophical thinking. According to Locke, personal identity extends only as far back as one’s memory allows. Our sense of self is inherently tied to our ability to remember past actions, thoughts, and experiences. If a person can recall an event, they are the same person who experienced it; if they cannot, they are not.
Locke uses a thought experiment to illustrate this point. Imagine a person who possesses a non-physical soul previously belonging to a historical figure, such as Socrates or Nestor. If the individual has no recollection of experiences from these past lives, they cannot claim to be the same person as these figures. Memory, not the soul, is the true marker of personal identity.
“Having no consciousness reaching into the past, even if there were continuance of the same soul, is evidence that the soul is not where personal identity resides. Personal identity or the self resides in consciousness and in that alone.”
This focus on memory places Locke at odds with those who argue that the soul or body is essential to identity. By emphasizing consciousness and memory, Locke separates the self from its physical and metaphysical ties, suggesting that the self is primarily a function of internal experiences.
Objections to Locke’s Memory Theory
Locke’s memory theory of personal identity has sparked considerable debate and criticism. Critics argue that reducing the self to memory leads to paradoxes and practical challenges, raising questions about continuity, accountability, and the nature of consciousness.
Reid’s Brave Officer Paradox
One of the most famous objections comes from Thomas Reid, a Scottish philosopher who highlighted a paradox in Locke’s theory. Reid’s Brave Officer Paradox presents a scenario involving three stages of a person’s life: a young boy, a brave officer, and an elderly general.
- Young Boy: The boy is punished for stealing apples.
- Brave Officer: As an adult, the officer remembers being punished as a boy.
- Elderly General: The general remembers being the officer but does not remember being the boy.
According to Locke, because the officer remembers being the boy, they are the same person. Similarly, because the general remembers being the officer, they are the same person. However, because the general does not remember being the boy, Locke’s theory suggests that the general and the boy are not the same person. This leads to a logical contradiction: the general is both the same person as the boy (through the officer) and not the same person.
Reid’s paradox exposes a flaw in Locke’s theory, showing that a reliance on memory alone can lead to inconsistencies in defining personal identity.
Other Objections
Other critics point out practical issues with Locke’s theory:
- Interruption of Consciousness: Consciousness is not continuous. It is interrupted by sleep, unconsciousness, or altered states (e.g., drunkenness). If personal identity relies solely on memory, does the self cease to exist during these interruptions?
- Selective Memory: Human memory is fallible and selective. People often forget experiences or remember them inaccurately. Does this mean that forgotten actions are not part of one’s identity?
- Moral Accountability: Locke’s theory raises ethical concerns about accountability. If a person commits a crime but has no memory of it, are they still responsible? Can they be justly punished?
In response to these objections, Locke argues pragmatically that societal laws operate on external evidence and do not always align with the philosophical nuances of personal identity. He suggests that ultimate judgment would be based on true consciousness, implying a moral distinction between human justice and divine justice.
“Human laws punish both, with a justice suitable to their way of knowledge; because in these cases, they cannot distinguish certainly what is real, what counterfeit; and so the ignorance in drunkenness or sleep is not admitted as a plea.”
Internal Memory and the Slippery Slope Towards Idealism
Beyond the objections mentioned above, Locke’s theory appears to reduce the self not just to memory, but specifically to internal memory. This distinction is crucial and opens the door to further philosophical implications.
By prioritizing internal memory, Locke implies that the self exists purely in the mind, dependent on individual consciousness. This internalization of the self raises the question: is Locke unwittingly leaning towards idealism? Idealism, the philosophical belief that reality is fundamentally mental or immaterial, contradicts Locke’s broader empiricist stance, which emphasizes sensory experience and the material world.
Locke’s insistence on internal memory suggests that experiences, actions, and even the self only exist if they are consciously remembered. This viewpoint risks reducing reality to subjective mental experiences, positioning Locke closer to the idealist perspective that he might have intended.
Conclusion
John Locke’s theory of personal identity, centered on memory and consciousness, represents a significant shift in philosophical thinking about the self. By arguing that personal identity extends only as far back as one’s memory, Locke separates the self from the soul and body, grounding it in the mind. This perspective challenges traditional views and opens the door to new interpretations of identity, continuity, and self-awareness.
However, Locke’s memory theory is not without its challenges. The paradoxes and practical issues raised by critics like Thomas Reid, along with Locke’s own reduction of the self to internal memory, reveal the complexities and potential contradictions in his account. By prioritizing internal memory, Locke risks slipping towards idealism, suggesting that reality is primarily a construct of the mind rather than an objective, external phenomenon.
Despite these challenges, Locke’s insights into personal identity remain influential. His emphasis on consciousness and memory invites ongoing debate about the nature of the self, accountability, and the relationship between mind and body. Locke’s exploration of personal identity continues to inspire and provoke thought, illustrating the enduring quest to understand the essence of who we are.