PHI 200 : Modern Philosophy

Francisco Jung
Final Essay Exam
Answer one question from each part.
Part I : Locke
2. What is Lockes theory of personal identity? What problems arise
for it?
John Locke explains his theory on personal identity by
distinguishing between a man and a person and also a soul from
consciousness. However, when he narrows down on what personal
identity is, he becomes too specific to say that it is not the same
substance, either physical or mental, but rather the consciousness of
ones present thoughts and actions that dictates personal identity. As
he elaborates on his theory about consciousness, his over reliance on
memories and ambiguous description of consciousness causes
problems.
Locke makes the controversial distinction between man and
person by deducing hypothetical scenarios. Locke holds that man is an
animal and thus refers to a living body of a particular shape. For
example, if the soul of a man was to be reborn in the body of an
animal, such as a hog, and if we knew that the soul of a man was in
one of our hogs, it would require us to call the hog a man (page 66).
Furthermore, Locke pairs the examples of a rational talking parrot with

a creature that has the shape of a man but cannot engage in rational
discourse in order to demonstrate that rational discourse is neither a
necessary or sufficient condition for being a man (page 67). In other
words, a person is an intelligent thinking being that can know itself as
the same thinking thing in different times and places. Locke uses the
prince and the cobbler as another way of clarifying the distinction
between man and person. In this case, the soul of the prince with all of
his thoughts is transferred from the body of the prince to the body of
the cobbler and as a result the prince still considers himself the prince
despite the fact that he finds himself in an altogether new body. Once
again, Lockes distinction between man and person explains how the
same person can show up in a different body and yet still be the same
person but this time he makes another distinction between the
consciousness and the soul. Locke focuses on the prince and his
thoughts because he believes it is consciousness that is crucial to the
responsibility of the reward and punishment. Locke holds that
consciousness is essential for justice to be done. If one is punished for
doing something which one does not remember doing, it is equivalent
to being made miserable (page 74). Therefore, since consciousness
plays the most important role in punishment and reward at the last
judgment for ones actions, and consciousness can be transferred from
one soul to another, Locke deduces that consciousness is the bearer of
personal identity. However, this distinction is extremely controversial in

that it completely reinterprets the judicial system. For justice to be

done in Lockes theory, memory must be completely accurate in order
for one to be held responsible for their deeds or misdeeds and also
evidence which others might produce about ones identity is rendered
useless. This also creates the possibility of transferred and multiple
personal identities as well as the possibility of getting away with no
punishment for a misdeed by simply forgetting.
Though the distinction between man and person is controversial,
by severing the connection over time between the soul or the entity
which thinks in us and consciousness is even more radical. Locke
states that, if the same Substance which thinks be changed, it can
be the same person, or remaining the same, it can be a different
person (page 69). In other words, consciousness can be transferred
from one substance to another and thus while the soul is changed,
consciousness remains the same and thus personal identity is
preserved through the change. And on the other hand, consciousness
can be lost as in utter forgetfulness while the soul or thinking
substance remains the same. Under these conditions there is the same
soul but a different person, which amounts to the claim that the same
soul or thinking substance is neither necessary nor sufficient for
personal identity over time. Locke believes that having the same soul
is an unnecessary condition for personal identity because of the
skepticism behind the ability to reidentify the same soul over time. He

claims that if we were always awake, we could be certain that we had

the same soul but consciousness has natural gaps in it, such as periods
during which we are asleep and thus there is no way of knowing that
one soul has not been substituted for another during this period of
unconsciousness (page 68). However, the rejection of the soul as a
necessary condition for personal identity is radical in that
consciousness is inextricably connected to thought, and the mind is
defined as the thinking thing but Locke makes it seem as though
consciousness is a substance. Locke admits that consciousness cannot
exist independently and it must be part of a thinking thing (page 70).
This implies that consciousness is a property or a mode that belongs to
a mind or a thinking substance. However, it seems as though the
ability to simply be transferred from one substance to another without
belonging to any one in particular makes it seem as though it is not a
property. In order for consciousness to be transferred freely without
belonging to any of the minds it transfers to it would have to be a
substance. But as a substance it would also be able to exist
independently. This ambiguous identity of consciousness itself raises
more questions and doubts regarding Lockes theory. However, in
Lockes defense, he does state that he is not sure whether
consciousness can, in fact, be transferred between minds.

Although Lockes theory on personal identity was unprecedented

and radical, it is problematic because of its lack of specificity. Thomas
4

Reid makes a good counterclaim towards the lack of specificity in the

memory aspect of Lockes theory. Reid elaborates on the three stages
of age a man experiences throughout his life and how the middle-aged
man can remember his childhood, while the old man can only
remember his middle age. But according to Lockes theory the middleaged man would be the same person as the child whereas the old man
would be the same person as the middle-aged man and it would follow
that the old man is not the same person as the child. This implies that
there has been a change in consciousness throughout the life of the
man and in order for consciousness to freely transfer from one
substance to another it must be a substance and not a mode or
property, which should have an intimate relationship with the
substance it is bound to. However, due to the lack of specificity on
whether consciousness is a substance or mode and whether it can be
transferred between minds, his whole theory is uncertain.

Part II : Berkeley
3. How does Berkeley attempt to prove the existence of God? What
problems arise for his proof?

Berkeley attempts to prove the existence of God in two proofs:

one regarding the causation of ideas and the other regarding the
5

perception of objects by an infinite spirit or mind. However, the

argument of an all-perceiver and an all-causer relies heavily on the
truth of Berkeleys idealism, which also relies on the existence of God.
This cyclical relationship poses a problem due to the reliance on the
truth of both theories.
The existence of God is proven through an argument regarding
the causation of ideas. First he draws a distinction between the vivid
and forceful ideas of sense caused by God and the faint and weak
ideas of imagination caused by oneself. Ideas of sense constitute the
real world while ideas of imagination are the thoughts produced by
oneself. Berkeley then deduces that since ideas of sense are not
caused by oneself, they must be caused by something or some mind
such as God. The proof goes as follows:
1. Ones ideas of sense must have a cause
2. Ideas of sense, unlike those of imagination, do not depend on
ones own will, so they must have some other cause
3. Ideas of sense are not caused by material objects, since
matter does not exist
4. Ideas of sense cannot be caused by other ideas, since ideas
are inactive and have no power
5. .:. Therefore, ones ideas of sense must be caused by some
other mind, namely God
This argument holds that God causes sensible ideas in ones mind that
are independent from oneself since they are cause by another mind
(page 187). This allows for the validity of Berkeleys idealism in that

matter does not exist since it all exists as an idea in the mind of God.
However, without the existence of God everything that idealism entails
can no longer be true because it would mean that the cause of the
sensible ideas must be caused by oneself perceiving matter that exists.
Another argument is made regarding the perception of sensible
objects in order to prove the existence of God. Berkeley claims that
sensible things can never exist unperceived and that these things exist
independently of ones own mind. From this it follows that there is
another mind, which perceives sensible things keeping them in
existence. The proof goes as follows:
1. All ideas must be perceived
2. Sensible objects are ideas
3. Objects continue to exist even when they are not perceived by
any finite minds
4. .:. Therefore, there is an infinite spirit or mind that perceives
objects
The first and second premise depends upon Philonous arguments for
idealism in the First Dialogue that all objects are ideas that need to be
perceived in order to exist (page 248). However, the third and fourth
premise is when Berkeleys idealism relies heavily on the existence of
God. Once again, without the existence of God, there is nothing that
causes or perceives the sensible ideas, which means that there must
be matter.
This cyclical relationship between the existence of God and
idealism poses a problem when one of the constituents is proven false.
7

Berkeley acknowledges that he has no idea of God or any other spirit:

I own I have properly no idea, either of God or any other spirit; for
these being active (page 275). But he readily accepts the existence
of God even without any ideas about him and yet he denies the
existence of a physical world despite his numerous perceptions about
it. It is not a given that God is existent and yet the premises in the
aforementioned proofs that try to prove the existence of God require
His existence to be a given.

Works Cited
Berkeley, George. The Empiricists: Berkeley: Principles of Human
Knowledge and 3
Dialogues. New York, N.Y. Anchor Books, 1974. Print.

Locke, John. The Empiricists: Locke: An Essay Concerning Human

Understanding.
New York, N.Y. Anchor Books, 1974. Print.