What defines me? A philosophical look at identity

What defines me?

                The philosophical topic that I believe is the most important to understand is personal identity. There are multiple theories that attempt to define identity. To better understand what these arguments are trying to prove, we need to define what personal identity is. Personal is defined as, "of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private", according to Dictionary.com.  So what we are talking about is the self, who you are as a person. Identity is defined as, "the sense of self, providing sameness and continuity in personality over time". This tells us that the term 'personal identity' refers to a particular person's self and how it is affected by time.

          There are four main theories that explain the 'personal self'. These are commonly known as the illusion, body, soul and memory theories. Through time, each has had support and popularity with strong arguments being made in support. I believe that the memory theory is the strongest argument for 'personal identity' because it follows logical premises that make sense.

                To better explain and compare the theories of personal identity, I will use a situational example to place them all into. In class, we watched a video which brought up the case of the World War Two officer. During the war, this man was a SS officer who committed a number of war crimes which he was not tried for. Later in his life, charges were brought on him for his past crimes. He argued that he can no longer has memory of what happened and cannot be held responsible for what he does not remember.  I will use this example to help explain what each argument would say regarding this case and if should be found guilty or not.

The memory theory is pretty simple to understand. When applied to a subject, it seems logical. I like to keep things simple and prefer to use logic to explain things, rather than pondering something such as the existence of the soul. This reasoning leads me to support memory theory as the best approach when it comes to 'personal identity'.

                The memory theory bases identity on the recollection of past memories. Memory is defined as, "the mental capacity or faculty of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions or recalling previous experiences". The key point is that it relies on remembering things that happen in the past. 

                Based on this theory, we are the same person today as we were in the past as long as we have memories of the person we use to be. Our current self is connected to the past by memories, when a bond exists; you are the same person as you were in the past.  As time goes on, your self will be the same as long your can remember back. The memory theory believes that it is the recollection of past memories that make the self.

                If the self is made from memories, it is not a physical thing; therefore your self is a psychological entity.  The reasoning I really liked this theory is because it takes into account memories and experiences into determining who you are. I can remember my experiences from elementary school. It seems logical that for however long I remember my past, I am still the same person I can remember. The memory takes a very important role in life, take a look at the example of choosing losing your memories and becoming a king, or keeping your memories (Rauhut 129). Most people choose to keep their memories. They value them because memories are what make up who they are.  They are correct, based on the memory theory, memories are what make up the self and when put into that context of the king, a person would tend to agree.

                I agree with the position memory theory would take on the World War Two example. This officer, now old, has lost his memories that connect him with his past self. He has no recollection of what he did in the past. Taking this into account, I determine that he would not be responsible for his actions because he not the person who committed those acts. His memory of that person is gone, if you're "self" is your recollection of your past memories. Then he is no longer the person he cannot remember.  Some would argue that he still needs to be punished, but based on the memory theory. He does not deserve any punishment because he is not the same person.

                When I take a look at different situations, the memory theory seems to be a good choice. I agree that the memory is the factor that determines what your 'personal identity' is. There are, however, strong arguments that disagree with what the memory theory proposes.

                While the memory theory describes the self as a physiological entity, there are two arguments that define the self as a substance that actually exists rather than just something in the mind. This vies is divided into the body and soul theories which are relatively popular especially in religious points of view.
                The body theory focuses on the existence of the physical form to define the self. Body is defined as, "the physical structure and material substance of an animal, or plant, living or dead". So the body theory deals with physical things that you can actually touch to verify existence.

The body theory believes that we are the same person as long as we have the same physical body.  I can see how people would like this idea, it is pretty easy to understand and relate to. Take a look at modern science and there is many popular applications of the body theory; dna testing, fingerprints, ect (Rauhut 123). In America's legal system, these things have become paramount in proving guilt or innocence in criminal court. I can agree with some of the things the body theory is able to accomplish. There are, however, some problems that arise when I look at the body theory.

Let's take a look at the World War Two example again. There is no doubt that he is the same physical form today as he was during the war. The body theory would argue that he is guilty because he is the same person that committed the crimes; his physical form has not changed.  Although Dna testing and fingerprinting would prove this to be correct, I do not believe that is what makes up the person. This man has no memory of what occurred in the past, no connection to it besides being the same physical body. I would argue that regardless of him being the same physical form, he is not the same person because of the lack of memories connecting him to the event.

Another example which relates would be that of someone who has amnesia or becomes a vegetable. Based on the body theory, a person would still be the same self even after experiencing these conditions. That seems like a pretty weak argument to me. If someone had lost all memory and even mental function, I cannot believe that they can possibly the same person they use to be. I would argue that after the events, their past self ceases to exist when they lose memory of it, regardless of having the same physical form.

When taking into account the examples I described, the body theory has some holes in it's argument. It is unable to account for things beyond the physical form like the memory theory can. This leads me to support the memory theory over the body theory because it can fulfill situations where the body theory would not work to define the self. The other theory within the self as substance tree is the soul theory.

Prior to presenting and arguing the soul theory, I would like to state my personal bias when it comes to souls. The soul theory has a large connection to religion and the afterlife. I do not believe in the possibility of an afterlife or a soul, therefore I would not even consider the soul theory a valid argument. For the purposes of providing all sides, I will present the soul theory like any other.

The soul theory is all based on the existence of this thing called the soul.  Soul is defined as, "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body". So were talking about something that exists but is not verifiable, you cannot see or touch your soul. It is something that is separate from the physical form; therefore it does not end when the physical body dies.

The soul theory holds a similar view to the body theory of "same body, same person" (Rauhut 117), but instead it is "same soul, same person" (Rauhut 117). Where the soul is what defines who the person is and this is an eternal entity. In a way, soul theorists argue that the person survives beyond life into something else. They argue this because they believe the self is tied to a thing called a soul, which endures the passing of the physical form. This is a view that is commonly accepted in many of the world's major religions.

Using the example of the Officer a soul theorists would say that he is indeed guilty. This is seen as the case because he posses the same soul as he did when he committed these acts regardless of remembering. Based on soul theory, it is the same soul doing these things; therefore he is guilty because within his soul, he is the same person who did those things.

Although the soul theory is widely supported and makes sense to most people, I have a few problems with it. The first thing that jumps out is the possibility of the soul theory to exist. It seems hard to prove something that there is no physical or mental connection to. Memory is a physiological thing, but you can connect to it by simply thinking about past memories.  There is no way to do this with the soul. I find it hard to believe in something that is not easily proven with evidence.

Another question with the soul theory is; how does it change over time? Is it possible to lose your soul or does it ever changes? There is no way of knowing if the soul changes along with the person.  With the memory theory however, your 'self' changes as your memories change. You are whoever you can remember back to be. There is an alternative to the body and soul substance theories.

The other major theory used to argue 'personal Identity' is the illusion theory. Illusion is defined as, "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality". In essence, the illusion theory is talking about something that is not real and only appears to exist. This is the stance this theory takes when it comes to the self.

According to Illusionists, there is no self that is present through time. The self changes from one moment to the next and is constantly turning into something new. If the self is going through constant change, there actually is no self. There is only an illusion of a self. This point of view was described to be like a river according to Heraclitus, "It is not possible to step twice in the same river…It scatters and again comes together, and approaches and recedes"(Rauhut 119). He uses the analogy of a river to describe the self. It is always changing and flowing and will never be the same from one moment to the next.

The illusion theory would find the World War Two officer not guilty. This happens because if they believe the personal self is always changing. You cannot be held responsible for things in the past because it was not done by you. This is a big problem when it comes to the criminal justice system. If people are not responsible for their actions; why is that we have so many people incarcerated in jails for their actions? That is a similar argument to that of the memory theory but there are a few differences that separate the two greatly.

On the surface, the idea of the illusion theory makes sense because humans are constantly exposed to new things but there some very big issues when it comes to practicality in life. If you are always changing and you are never the same, why do humans put so much into their future and life? Look at college for example; I am one of many college students in America. The reason I want to get my education is to have a better chance of getting the job I want in the future. Under the illusion theory, it would not matter what you are doing in the future because you are not the same, this contradicts most people's life choices. Memory theory however, argues that you are still the same person in the future as long as you can remember things from the past. If this is true, then the memory theory provides reason to go to college and look forward to having a future unlike the illusion theory.

There are many points of view when it comes to arguing the existence of a 'personal self'.  Each has their own strengths and weaknesses but I believe it is clear that one is more logical and applicable than the others.

A lot of people want to accept the soul theory to be right; it has too many unknowns that cannot be accounted for. It is hard to justify believing in something that you can never really prove to exist. As much support as it gets, it is destined to never be provable until a connection between the soul and person can be made, this however is not likely to occur.

The body theory is a very simple argument that uses some basic logic to explain. The problem with the body theory is that it is too simple; it does not take into account the mental state of the person, just the physical form. I find it hard to follow unless some of those issues are dealt with.

The illusion theory does seem to make sense with their view that the person is always changing over time. The problem comes with how they connect the self with the self of the past, they do not. This poses a big problem, if this were to be true, the reason for existence and living would be hard to support.  Illusion theory does not apply to practical life.

This is why I believe the memory theory to be more correct than other ways of describing the 'personal self'. It makes sense that you are made up of your past and it will always influence who you are in the future as long as you can remember it. The argument about losing connection with your past is simply solved by stating, if you lose the memory connection with your past, you are no longer the person you were in the past. Although the memory theory is not perfectly sound, for the most part I believe it to be the best way to understand what the self actually is.

Works Cited:

Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, LLC, Web. 12 Nov 2009. <http://dictionary.reference.com/>.

Rauhut, Nils Ch. Ultimate Questions: Thinking About Philosophy. 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Pearson Education, 2007. 113-136. Print.