John Locke - Clayton Thomas (10)

     Think back, to the time you were a baby. Now compare that to who you are now.Very different people correct? Well John Locke seems to believe otherwise. John Locke (1632-1704) believed that we remain the same human over time remaining the same 'human animal' as we were compared to childhood. According to Locke, "I could be the same 'man, but not the same person I was previously." He claimed that what makes us the same person over time is our consciousness, our awareness of our own selves.

    Locke's ideas seem to be on the right track to understanding ourselves and how we define who we really are, but the logic doesn't seem to be quite there. Using Locke's logic, your personal identity only extends back as far as your memory; therefore, unless you can remember being a baby you are now a different person, which seems to be a bit absurd. We remain in the same body our whole lives, so the continuity of life in the same body should show enough that we are the same person. Just because we cannot remember being a baby doesn't take away the fact that we were one babies with thoughts and emotions which we began building our knowledge of life.

    Thomas Reid was one such philosopher whom tried to disprove Locke's logic by using the example of a soldier. It follows that, an old soldier can remember his bravery in battle as a young soldier, as a young soldier he could remember being hit as a boy for theft of apples from an orchard, yet in his old age he could not remember being struck as a child. So by Locke's logic, the old man and the young boy are different people,     Think back, to the time you were a baby. Now compare that to who you are now.Very different people correct? Well John Locke seems to believe otherwise. John Locke (1632-1704) believed that we remain the same human over time remaining the same 'human animal' as we were compared to childhood. According to Locke, "I could be the same 'man, but not the same person I was previously." He claimed that what makes us the same person over time is our consciousness, our awareness of our own selves.

    Locke's ideas seem to be on the right track to understanding ourselves and how we define who we really are, but the logic doesn't seem to be quite there. Using Locke's logic, your personal identity only extends back as far as your memory; therefore, unless you can remember being a baby you are now a different person, which seems to be a bit absurd. We remain in the same body our whole lives, so the continuity of life in the same body should show enough that we are the same person. Just because we cannot remember being a baby doesn't take away the fact that we were one babies with thoughts and emotions which we began building our knowledge of life, but the the old man and the young soldier are the same person and the young soldier and the child are the same person. Which is like saying A=B and B=C, but A doesn't equal C. So this contradicting statement by Reid has disproved Locke's logic.