John Locke

What exactly is the concept of personal identity, or the self? Are we the same

person over time, and what makes us different from other people? Many philosophers

across generations have sought to answer this question. One such person was John

Locke. He argued that personal identity is a matter of psychological continuity, or

continuous consciousness in a person or even other living organisms. He also defined

consciousness as being made up of memories. However, what happens when someone

cannot remember something, like when they become drunk and are unable to

remember what they did that night? Is it not you who did those things? In this essay, I

will discuss if not being able to memorize something does not make you the person who

did those things.

John Locke describes a person as a thinking, intelligent being with reason and

reflection. It is able to think of itself as itself, and can recognize itself as itself in different

times and places. The “self” is a unified being, composed of different elements, primarily

consciousness, awareness, and agency. Locke describes self-consciousness as being

inseparable from thinking, and essential to thinking. “It is impossible for anyone to

perceive, without perceiving that they perceive. And by this self-awareness each person

is to themselves that which we call self.” (John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human

Understanding, Book I, Chapter 27). A person's identity is determined by the

characteristics that set them apart from other people. Your personality traits, what

movies you love, your values, and your beliefs are all different components of what your

personal identity is. Locke argues that this basis of personal identity comes from a

continuous stream of self-consciousness. Lock states that, “in this continuity of self-
consciousness alone consists personal identity.” (John Locke, An Essay Concerning

Human Understanding, Book I, Chapter 27). Knowing that you are who you are, and

knowing what your beliefs are. Locke also adds that your consciousness is made up of

your memories from life, “and as far as this consciousness can be extended backwards

to any past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that person.” (John Locke,

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book I, Chapter 27). He also applies this

to trees and animals, stating that, “The oak tree is those same particles arranged and

disposed so as to constitute the parts of an oak. Specifically, the oak tree is an

organization of those material parts that is fit to receive and distribute nourishment, so

as to continually be the wood, bark, and leaves, of an oak, in which consists its

vegetable life”, and an animal “is a living organized body; and consequently the same

animal, as we have observed, is the same continued life communicated to different

particles of matter, as they happen successively to be united to that organized living

body.” (John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book I, Chapter 27).

But what about when we cannot remember our past actions? We are made up of

our continuous consciousness and memories, so wouldn't we be a different person in

that moment if we couldn't remember something? Thomas Reid, another notable

philosopher, states, “And if a thinking being were to lose the consciousness of the

actions he had done (which surely is possible), then he is not the person who performed

those actions; so that one thinking being could be two or twenty different persons if he

lost the consciousness of his former actions two or twenty times.” (Thomas Reid, No. 3

of Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Chapter 6, pg. 127). For example,

someone gets too drunk to function when out partying with their friends. They get in
their car and drive around when they suddenly come upon a person crossing the street.

Since they are drunk, they are unable to respond appropriately and hit the person

crossing the street. The person lives, but you are unable to remember what you did the

next day. Locke’s definition of personal identity and the self states that continuous

consciousness and memory constitute personal identity. Since you were not conscious

and do not remember the event, by his definition, it was not you who ran the person

over in your drunken stupor.

However, is this actually true? The problem with this stance is that it

fundamentally implies that you are turning into a different person when you become

drunk and are unable to remember what you did the next day. Locke himself states this,

saying, “Your view implies that an individual who is drunk is a different person than the

person they are when they’re sober. And surely that’s not true.” If you are not able to

recall doing something, like in the example, then why are you still considered

accountable by others and by the law? “Why else do we hold one another responsible

for the things we do when we’re drunk, even if we don’t remember what we did the next

day?” (John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book I, Chapter 27).

In these types of scenarios, the law cannot discern what is real and what is not,

therefore, ignorance from drunkenness is not admitted as an excuse.” While the

intoxicated person may or may not be conscious while they are driving around, we still

hold them accountable for their actions because, as Locke states, “the fact of our

actions can be proved, but loss of consciousness cannot be proved one way or

another.” (John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book I, Chapter

27). There is no feasible way to prove consciousness. While you may not remember
what you have done, others will be able to remember your acts, and your actions will be

verified accordingly by their memories.

Personal identity and the concept of our “self” is a complicated topic to try to

answer. John Locke gave his description of the “self” as a unified being composed of

many different things, like consciousness and awareness. To be self-conscious, you

need to be continually aware, and perceive that you are perceiving. Then, Locke states,

personal identity is the continuous self-consciousness of a human being. Our

consciousness is made up of our memories from our lives. However, what about when

we cannot remember something that we did in the past? Thomas Reid, another notable

philosopher, noticed this same problem with Locke’s theory. He asked, if we do

something when drunk and do not remember what we did the next day, was it really us

who did it? Reid also states that a person could be a large number of different persons

by Locke’s definition if that person were to lose consciousness any number of times.

The fundamental problem with Reid’s view of Locke’s theory is that it implies that you

become a different person when drunk. This cannot be true, as we are still held

responsible for our actions by others and by the law even if we cannot remember what

we did. We can prove the fact that we have done something by various means. For

example, the memory of others who were at the scene, the victim, if they survived, and

any other evidence. However, as Locke states, we cannot prove that the person lost

consciousness when they were drunk.

Works cited:

Locke, J. (2020). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book 1, Chapter

27. In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. essay, K.Gehrman.

Reid, T. (2007). Chapter 6: Locke's account of our personal identity. In Memory:

No. 3 of Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. essay, Jonathan Bennet.