110 Chapter 3

John Locke, from On Personal Identity

To find wherein personal identity consists, we must consider what person stands for;—
which, I think, is a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can con-
sider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places; which it does
only by that consciousness which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me,
essential to it: it being impossible for any one to perceive without perceiving that he does
perceive. When we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, meditate, or will anything, we know that we
do so. Thus it is always as to our present sensations and perceptions: and by this every
one is to himself that which he calls self:—it not being considered, in this case, whether
the same self be continued in the same or divers substances. For, since consciousness
always accompanies thinking, and it is that which makes everyone to be what he calls
self, and thereby distinguishes himself from all other thinking things, in this alone consists
personal identity, i.e., the sameness of a rational being: and as far as this consciousness
can be extended backwards to any past action or thing, so far reaches the identity of that
person; it is the same self now it was then; and it is by the same self with this present one
that now reflects on it, that that action was done.

In this initial passage, Locke makes the following points, implicitly asking the ques-
tion of his readers, “Aren’t these conclusions confirmed by examining your own
experiences?”

1. To discover the nature of personal identity, we’re going to have to find out what it
means to be a person.
2. A person is a thinking, intelligent being who has the abilities to reason and to reflect.
3. A person is also someone who considers itself to be the same thing in different
times and different places.
4. Consciousness—being aware that we are thinking—always accompanies thinking
and is an essential part of the thinking process.
5. Consciousness is what makes possible our belief that we are the same identity in
different times and different places.

Reflect carefully on Locke’s points—do you find that his conclusions match
your own personal experience? Certainly his first three points seem plausible.
What about points 4 and 5? Does consciousness always accompany the thinking
process? Locke explains: “When we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, meditate, or will
anything, we know that we do so. Thus it is always as to our present sensations
and perceptions: and by this every one is to himself that which he calls self.” Con-
sider what you are doing at this moment: You are thinking about the words on
the page, the ideas that are being expressed—are you also aware of yourself as
you are reading and thinking? Certainly once the question is posed to you, you’re
aware of your self. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that when you think, you are
either conscious of your self—or potentially conscious of your self. In other words,
are there times in which you are fully immersed in an activity—such as dancing,
driving a car, or playing a sport—and not consciously aware that you are doing
so? Analogously, are there times in which you are fully engaged in deep thought—
wrestling with a difficult idea, for example—and not aware that you are doing so?
But even if there are times in which you are unreflectively submerged in an activ-
ity or thought process, you always have the potential to become aware of your self
engaged in the activity or thought process.
What about Locke’s fifth point, that consciousness is necessary for us to have a
unified self-identity in different times and places? This seems like a point well taken.

SAuSAgEMaN
 who are you? 111

Thinking Philosophically
Applying Locke’s Ideas
Here’s an opportunity for you to analyze your own views on the self, using Locke’s
conclusions as a guide:
• What do you think are the essential mental qualities that define all people?
• How would you define your personal identity? How would you define you as a person?
How would you describe the relationship between the two?
• What do you think is the relationship between your consciousness and your thinking
process?
• What do you think is the relationship between your consciousness and your concept
of self-identity as something that remains the same in different times and places?

You consider your self to be the same self who was studying last night, attending a
party at a friend’s house two weeks ago, and taking a vacation last summer. How can
you be sure it’s the same self in all of these situations? Because of your consciousness of
being the same self in all of these different contexts.
These points become clearer when we contrast human thinking with animal think-
ing. It’s reasonable to believe that mammals such as chipmunks, dogs, and dolphins
are able to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel, just like humans. But are they conscious of
the fact that they are performing these activities as they are performing them? Most
people would say “no.” And because they are not conscious that they are performing
these activities, it’s difficult to see how they would have a concept of self-identity that
remains the same over time and place. So consciousness—or more specifically, self-
consciousness—does seem to be a necessary part of having a coherent self-identity.
(Some people believe that higher-order mammals such as chimpanzees and gorillas
present more complicated cases.)
Descartes would agree with Locke’s view that a person—or self—is a thinking,
intelligent being that has the abilities to reason and to reflect. And he likely would
be sympathetic to Locke’s contention that consciousness accompanies thinking and
makes possible the concept we have of a self that remains the same at different times
and in different places. But in the following passage, Locke expresses a belief that
many people—including Descartes—would likely disagree with. Let’s examine his
unusual belief regarding the self.

John Locke, from On Personal Identity

Consciousness Makes Personal Identity
But it is further inquired, whether it [personal identity] be the same identical substance. This
few [Locke refers here to Descartes] would think they had reason to doubt of, if these per-
ceptions, with their consciousness, always remained present in the mind, whereby the same
thinking thing would be always consciously present, and, as would be thought, evidently the
same to itself. But that which seems to make the difficulty is this, that this consciousness
being interrupted always by forgetfulness, there being no moment of our lives wherein we
have the whole train of all our past actions before our eyes in one view, but even the best
memories losing the sight of one part whilst they are viewing another; and we sometimes,
and that the greatest part of our lives, not reflecting on our past selves, being intent on
our present thoughts, and in sound sleep having no thoughts at all, or at least none with
that consciousness which remarks our waking thoughts,—I say, in all these cases, our con-
sciousness being interrupted, and we losing the sight of our past selves, doubts are raised

SAuSAgEMaN
112 Chapter 3

whether we are the same thinking thing, i.e., the same substance or no. Which, however
reasonable or unreasonable, concerns not personal identity at all. The question being what
makes the same person; and not whether it be the same identical substance, which always
thinks in the same person, which, in this case, matters not at all: different substances, by
the same consciousness (where they do partake in it) being united into one person, as well
as different bodies by the same life are united into one animal, whose identity is preserved
in that change of substances by the unity of one continued life. For, it being the same con-
sciousness that makes a man be himself to himself, personal identity depends on that only,
whether it be annexed solely to one individual substance, or can be continued in a succes-
sion of several substances. For as far as any intelligent being can repeat the idea of any past
action with the same consciousness it had of it at first, and with the same consciousness it
has of any present action; so far it is the same personal self. For it is by the consciousness
it has of its present thoughts and actions, that it is self to itself now, and so will be the same
self, as far as the same consciousness can extend to actions past or to come; and would be
by distance of time, or change of substance, no more two persons, than a man be two men
by wearing other clothes to-day than he did yesterday, with a long or short sleep between:
the same consciousness uniting those distant actions into the same person, whatever sub-
stances contributed to their production.

As this passage makes clear, Locke is proposing a radically different version of the
self than the philosophical tradition before him. Plato and Descartes had agreed that
the self existed in the form of an immortal, nonmaterial soul that continues to exist fol-
lowing the death of the body. In a fascinating twist, Locke denies that the individual
self necessarily exists in a single soul or substance. For Locke, the essence of the self is
its conscious awareness of itself as a thinking, reasoning, reflecting identity. But this in
no way means that this self is necessarily embedded in a single substance or soul—it
might very well take up residence in any number of substances or souls.
In Locke’s mind, conscious awareness and memory of previous experiences are the
keys to understanding the self. In other words, you have a coherent concept of your self
as a personal identity because you are aware of your self when you are thinking, feeling,
and willing. And you have memories of times when you were aware of your self in the
past, in other situations—for example, at the party two weeks ago, or your high school
graduation several years ago. But, as we noted earlier, there are many moments when
we are not consciously aware of our self when we are thinking, feeling, and willing—we
are simply, unreflectively, existing. What’s more, there are many past experiences that
we have forgotten or have faulty recollections of. All of which means that during those
lapses, when we were not aware of our self, or don’t remember being aware of our self,
we can’t be sure if we were the same person, the same substance, the same soul! Our
personal identity is not in doubt or jeopardy because we are aware of our self (or re-
member being aware of it). But we have no way of knowing if our personal identity
has been existing in one substance (soul) or a number of substances (souls). For Locke,
personal identity and the soul or substance in which the personal identity is situated are
two very different things. Although the idea seems rather strange at first glance, Locke
provides a very concrete example to further illustrate what he means.

John Locke, from On Personal Identity

Personal Identity in Change of Substance
That this is so, we have some kind of evidence in our very bodies, all whose particles,
whilst vitally united to this same thinking conscious self, so that we feel when they are
touched, and are affected by, and conscious of good or harm that happens to them, are a
part of ourselves; i.e., of our thinking conscious self. Thus, the limbs of his body are to ev-
ery one a part of himself; he sympathizes and is concerned for them. Cut off a hand, and

SAuSAgEMaN
 who are you? 113

thereby separate it from that consciousness he had of its heat, cold, and other affections,
and it is then no longer a part of that which is himself, any more than the remotest part of
matter. Thus, we see the substance whereof personal self consisted at one time may be
varied at another, without the change of personal identity; there being no question about
the same person, though the limbs which but now were a part of it, be cut off.

It’s a rather gruesome example Locke provides, but it makes his point. Every as-
pect of your physical body (substance) is integrated with your personal identity—hit
your finger with a hammer, and it’s you who is experiencing the painful sensation. But
if your hand is cut off in an industrial accident, your personal identity remains intact,
although the substance associated with it has changed (you now have only one hand).
Or to take another example: The cells of our body are continually being replaced,
added to, subtracted from. So it’s accurate to say that in many ways you are not the
same physical person you were five years ago, ten years ago, fifteen years ago, and so
on. Nevertheless, you are likely convinced that your personal identity has remained
the same despite these changes in physical substance to your body. This leads Locke
to conclude that our personal identity is distinct from whatever substance it finds itself
associated with.

Reading Critically
Analyzing Locke on the Conscious Self
• Evaluate Locke’s claim that your conscious self is not permanently attached to any
particular body or substance. Does this view make sense? Why or why not?
• Locke believes that it is our memory that serves to link our self at this moment with our
self in previous circumstances. But people’s memories are often faulty. How can we
distinguish between accurate memories of our self and inaccurate memories? To do
so, don’t we have to assume that we have a continuous self that is performing the eval-
uation? But because memory is supposed to explain the existence of our self, doesn’t
this mean that Locke’s reasoning is circular? Explain your analysis of this dilemma.

What if consciousness could be transferred? In the movie The Curious Case of

Benjamin Button, the character played by Brad Pitt finds that his twelve-year-old personal identity
is installed in the body of an adult version of himself—the kind of self-mobility that Locke suggests
might be possible.

SAuSAgEMaN