Future Identity

In Book II of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Locke succeeds at confusing me. Which I can only assume is what he was trying to do because I have no idea what his intent was otherwise—I was that confused. From what I gather, our identities are basically a continuum of awareness of ourselves at any instant in time? It is mind boggling to think of myself as being aware of myself in a series of “insensibly succeeding” snapshots of being and it is very bleak to think that now, that instant where I was so hopelessly mind-boggled by Locke is a part of my collective self-awareness and inextricably a part of my identity for as long as I remain aware of that instant. Which brings me to one of many questions: Does reality even have anything to do with our identites? Continue reading

Who did it better?

An Essay concerning Human Understanding, by John Locke is an interesting piece. In chapter 27, he uses an analogy of atoms in order to explain his theory that no two things can exist in the same place.

“let us suppose an atom…if two or more atoms be joined together in the same mass, every one of those atoms will be the same…But if one of these atoms be taken away, or one new one added, it is no longer the same mass, or the same body”(Ch.27;3).

Locke uses scientific concepts in order to reinforce his theory of composition. However, this seems to relate with Plato’s Meno in which Socrates uses mathematics in order to drive his theory.

While different in theory(Socrates trying to prove education, Locke with understanding), they both employ some sort of quantitative medium in which to explain their points.  In regards to who I feel had a stronger analogy, let us analyze the examples. In Meno, Socrates uses a geometric shape with quantitative measurements in the form of numbers. Locke uses atomic theory in its infancy in order to push his point.

I am not saying that Plato’s argument is stronger or better than Locke’s, however in An Essay concerning Human Understanding, Locke employs concepts that were fairly new at the time of his writing, and therefore was not readily understood by everyone. Geometry and measurement has a longer history, with a much more far-reaching audience, explaining how the Slave knew some of what Socrates’ was explaining.

Consciousness and the Law

In The Philosophical Works and Selected Correspondence of John Locke, Lock discuss how someone perceives one’s self and the idea of “consciousness” and how it relates to one’s existence. One unique aspect of consciousness that Locke discusses is the idea that no matter what some one looks like, or what condition he or she is in, that person is still the same person.  Continue reading

You’re You

Fast forward almost two centuries from Aristotle’s time to that of John Locke’s, we approach Locke’s profoundly titled work “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (or more like, “Four Books Concerning Human Understanding”). Continue reading

Me, Myself, and I

Locke’s argument of identity and diversity made my head spin, simply because he examines it way more thoroughly than most people do. When I think of identity, I mostly define it as something that makes it who or what they are. However, Locke goes farther than that by describing in terms of existence; there is only one version of you, and every place and second that the state changes, that version of you is no more. It exists by itself. Even though you still continue to be “you,” those versions of you are only the diversity of your existence.

Continue reading

Exploring the Foundation of Identity

“For in them the variation of great parcels of matter alters not the identity: An oak growing from a plant to a great tree, and then lopped, is still the same oak; and a colt grown up to a horse, sometimes fat, sometimes lean, is all the while the same horse: Though in both these cases, there may be a manifest change of the parts; so that truly they are not either of them the same masses of matter, though they be truly one of them the same oak, and the other the same horse. The reason whereof is, that in these two cases, a mass of matter, and a living body, identity is not applied to the same thing” (Chapter 27, paragraph 3).

Many authors, especially philosophers, turn to beautiful metaphors to describe their ideas to readers. Here, Locke follows this ancient tradition, furthering his claim that variation does not alter identity through the example of the development of an oak tree and maturation of a horse.

I found these metaphors to be not only eloquent and engaging but also great illustrations of his assertion. In order to further his point that “variation” in “matter alters not the identity,” he describes an oak starting out as a small shoot and then growing into a “great tree,” showing that just because the shape of the tree changes, its element is not transformed: it is still composed of wood and undergoes the process of photosynthesis in order to survive.

Furthermore, he writes of how when a colt matures to a horse, growing either “fat” or “lean,” it is still “the same horse” by nature. Its physical attributes does not change the fact that larger horses and skinnier horses are still the same horse, just with different characteristics, such as either an enlarged or shrunken frame. The horses’ “matter,” or what makes the horses horses never changes.

As “parts” change, the object changes into a different form of that same object; however, its identity does not change in relation to these so-called “great parcels of matter.” According to Locke, its identity remains the same. Here, he writes that, in the sake of using the tree metaphor, as long as the tree has the ability to do its same biological functions through appendages that make it a tree, such as roots, trunk, and branches, in the furthering of its life as an organism, the tree continues to exist as one and the same tree, despite the changes in its constituent matter. He, therefore, concludes that even though living organisms constantly lose and gain portions of their matter through process of growth and aging, we are not inclined to believe that they have changed into different creatures. The identity of organisms is based on their ability to sustain the biological processes that keep them alive. In conclusion, Locke believes that identity is founded upon this principle, and that the only time such identity shifts is when something separates from the original organism and gains a life of its own.

How are prudence and experience related?

In Book VI of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle intensively discusses knowledge in the form of Prudence, a form of virtue. In this section, he provides his take on the debate between teaching vs. experience as means to achieve something, the similar issue we face in Plato’s Protagoras in which Socrates argues whether good is learned or experienced. Unlike Socrates, Aristotle clearly states his opinion on this issue, which is discussed below.   Continue reading

Lies to the Eyes

Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, introduces a thought provoking statement: “We all suppose that what we know is not capable of being otherwise; of things capable of being otherwise we do not know, when they have passed outside our observation, whether they exist or not.” (1139b36-1139b36 p. 1799) Continue reading

A foundation built on lies

In a way, Plato’s allegory of the cave applies to the citizens of the myth of metals. In Plato’s allegory, the prisoners have a misconstrued conception of what is real. They believe that the shadow of an item or figure is the item itself, and they lack the knowledge to understand that the image that they are seeing is only the form of the figure. In the myth of metals, the citizens are told that they inherently have a certain metal inside of them that sets there social standings. This is done to create a utopia. But a utopia implicitly implies that everything is good in a moral sense, yet the foundation of the society is based on lies, which is morally incorrect. I find it interesting that a society that preaches good morals can be built on an idea so corrupt.

It is fair to ask, however, whether or not this is a necessary “evil”. Does it benefit the people more than it harms them? In a society where people’s social standing remains stagnant, it is easy for people to remain complacent with their lives. Therefore, they will have little motivation to be innovative. There will be little personal success and the society will not advance. This is a better case scenario. Worst case scenario is that people who are not properly suited may be in a position of high standing. I understand that the guardians are well educated, but an excellent education does not mean that someone will be good. Being good is a combination of intrinsic attributes and extrinsic teachings. There were also examples of people who were given excellent educations but still turned out poorly. As a result, you have, at it’s best, a society that promotes overall stagnation, and, at it’s worst, rulers who are not fit for ruling, which can create substantial damage to a whole society.

Apples and Oranges and Peaches

In Aristotle’s “Metaphysics,” Aristotle’s claims have a lot to do with splitting different forms of knowledge and experience into categories and classes. For example, according to him, animals live by appearances and memories, while humans live by art and reason.  He clearly makes a distinction that while experience is more of an individual mentality, art is something universal because experience, which made of many memories, lead to art. Therefore, art is more knowledgeable than experience since artists can teach. He then proceeds to lay out a hierarchy of who is wiser, which includes the class of inventors.

Continue reading