RENE DESCARTES (1596-1650)

He is the “FATHER OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY” and the fist modern

rationalist.
He was known for his principle of “ COGIO ERGO SUM” ( I think,
therefore I exist). He felt that philosophy should move away from beliefs
of the medieval scholastics. He was looking for certainty , and used his
method of doubt ( skepticism ) to try and find what was indubitable.
Descartes believed that an individual’s mind is separate from the body
and the outside self. This is known as mind-body dualism.
He said that the mind (a think, non-extend things) is completely
different from that of the body (an extended, non-thinking things) and
therefore. It is possible for one to exist without the other.
Descartes believed that innate ideas or “pure” ideas are the very
attributes of the human mind. These “pure” ideas as known as “ prior”
that are present in all human existence . These innates are the
prerequisite for learning additional fact. Without ideas, no other data
could be known to men

JOHN LOCKE (1632-17040)

Was one of the philosopher who were against the cartesian theory that
soul accounts for personal identity. Chapter XXVII on “ identifying and
diversity” in an Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Locke
1689/1997)
Has been said to be one of the first modern conceptualization of
consciousness as the repeated self identification of oneself, in which
Locke gives his account of identity and personal identity in the second
edition of the essay
Locke holds that personal identity is a matter of psychological continuity
Arguing against both the AUGUSTINIAN view of the man as originally
sinful and the cartesian position
Which holds that man innately knows basic logical proportion .
Locke posits an “empty” mind. Tabula rasa, which is shaped by
experience , and sensation and reflection being the two sources of all
our ideas
Locke creates a third term between the soul and the body, and Locke
though may certainly be meditated by those who, following a scientist
ideology, would identify too quickly the brain with consciousness
remain the same, Therefore, personal identity is the brain but the
consciousness . However, Locke’s theory also reveals his debt to
theology and to apocalyptic “ great day” which in advance excuses any
failings of human justice and therefore humanity’s miserable states .
The problem of the personal identity is at the center of discussion about
life after death and immortality

CONCIOUSNESS CAN BE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE SOUL

TO ANOTHER
 Consciousness can be transferred from one substance to another,
and thus, while the soul is changed , consciousness remain the
same, thereby preserving the personal identity through the
change. On the other hand, consciousness can be lost as in utter
forgetfulness while the soul or thinking substance remain the
same. Under these condition , there is the same soul but a
different person. These affirmation amount to the claim that the
same soul or thinking substance is neither necessary nor sufficient
for personal identity over time.
 DAVID HUME (1711-1774)
HUME ON PERSONAL IDENTITY;

1.Arguments againts identity

* true to his extreme skepticism, rejects the notion of identity over
time. There are no underlying objects . There are no “person” that
continue to exist over time. There are merely impressions. This is idea
can be formulated as the following arguments
A. All ideas are ultimately derived from impression.
B. So, the idea of a persisting “self” is ultimately derived from the
impression.
C. But, no impression is a persisting things
D. Therefore, there cannot be any persisting idea of self
E. In short, because the “self’ must be constant persisting, stable
thing and yet all the knowledge is derived from impression, which
are transient, non-persisting, variable things, it follows that we do
not really have knowledge of a “self”( therefore, there IS no self;
at least we should be agnostic on the issue).

2. You are a bundle of impression:

try to think about your “self” . You cannot
Or, when you do, the only things you are thinking about are
individual impression such as hot, cold, light, dark love, hate, pain,
pleasure etc.
It follows that all you are in bundle of successive impression, or
deceptions
 But there is no underlying, stable thing called, “self” HOW COULD
be there?
The bundle of impression is just a collection of “ variables and
interrupted “ parts.
How can THAT constitute identity? How can THOSE things be what
compose something stable, continuous, and persisting?
3. Why we make a mistake;
Having rejected identity in objects or person, Hume then attempts to
explain why we THINK that things have identities. First , Hume notes
that we have a strong inclination to call somethings the “same” even
when it is radically different. For instance, removes a chunk of matter
some object and we call it the same.
A mature oak treeis said to be the “same” as the sapling . A fat adult is
said to be the “same” as the tiny infant . So strong is this inclination that
philosopher have attempted to explain identity via souls unobservable,
immaterial object. As if THAT could ever explain enything
In sum, all that we perceive are distinct, separable, successive
impression . But , we never observe necessary connection between and
distinct existences( as demonstrate in the causation action)

IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804)

Kant’s conception of the self is a response to Hume in part. Kant wished
to justify a conviction in physics as a body of universal truth . The other
being to insulate religion, especially belief in immortality and free will
(brooks 2004). In the Inaugural Dissertation of 1770. Kant corrected
earlier problems of a non-materials soul having localization in space
Kant use inner sense to defend heterogeneity of body and soul
“BODIES ARE OBJECTS OF OUTER SENSE ; SOUL ARE OBJECT OF INNER
SENSE” (Carpenter 2004)
There are two kinds components of the self
1. Inner self
2. Outer self- (brooks 2004)
There are two kinds of consciousness of self; consciousness of oneself
and one’s psychological states in the inner sense and consciousness of
oneself and one states via performing acts of apperception.
Empirical self-consciousness is the term Kant used to described the
inner self. Transcendental apperception or (TA) is used in two manners
by Kant for the term. The first being a synthetic faculty and second as
the I as a subject.
One will note that logically this function would occur in inner sense
include all spatially localized outer object
The origin of our presentation regardless if they are the product of a
priori or outer object as modifications of the mind belong to inner
sense. Kant represent apperception as a mean to consciousness to one’s
self
Brooks cites three types of synthesis. Kant claimed, there are three
types of synthesis required to organized information , namely
apprehending in the intuition reproducing in imagination and
recognizing in concept. “Synthesis” of appreciation concern raw
perceptual input, synthesis of recognition concern concept and
synthesis of reproduction in imagination allows to mind to go from the
one to other (Brooks 2004)
Unity of experience and consciousness are integral to the concept of
self. Transcendental apperception has function to unite all appearances
into one experience. This is unity based on causal laws. There is a
synthesis according to the concept that subordinates all the
transcendental unity. According to Kant the content of consciousness
must have causal connection to be unified (Brooks 2004)
Kant argues that in present progressive one can be aware of oneself by
an act of representing
Representation is not intuitive but spontaneous act of performing or
doing things. Man knows that by doing and fulfilling activities that these
impression cannot be simply sensations resulting from the senses
Kant postulate that there is a plurality of presentation that gives rise to
our view of self as a “ common subject”. This concept requires a
common undivided self. This concept is a continuation of global unity
that spans many representation , one does not have to be conscious of
the global object but oneself as a subject of representation