Question 1.
Choosing between Descartes and Leibniz’s understanding of the relationship between mind and body, I would say that Leibniz offers a more satisfying theory of the mind and body interaction than Descartes. Let me explain why by understand Leibniz’s and Descartes view on mind and body.
Descartes came up with a concept called Dualism of the mind and body, where he believed that there are two distinct substances; 1) matter of which the essential property fits together extended in space (like body, chairs, and rocks). 2) the mind or immaterial, of which the essential property is that it ‘thinks’ (like thoughts and ideas) which take no physical space – these are things that our mind is made up of. The nature of the mind a thinking non-extended …show more content…
Let me explain why by understanding Locke’s and Hume’s view of personal identity, based on a personal experience.
In 2006, while driving, I had a severe automobile accident on Highway 71 southbound, driving 70 miles per hour, my vehicle flipped over several times (I am told my vehicle flipped over 8 times by my mother and son who was in the vehicle with me). Finally coming to a halt after sliding upside down on the highway were I lost consciousness and I was pronounced dead on the scene – but I still live today. I cannot recall my past self. I am one with two beginnings, an exception to the rule – no doubt.
Locke would argue that I am not the same person because my conscious or thinking cannot recall my past memories. I have no psychological continuity. Because your consciousness determines your personal identity, according to Locke, not your body or personality. Has my identity changed? I say no, I am still the same person even though I cannot recall my past memories due to an accident that broke the continuity of my consciousness. Do I in-fact have two beginnings or do my past and present self share one beginning. Even more so, old age can be the cause of my consciousness or thinking – once again breaking my psychological continuity – not being able to recall my past and often present memories. Therefore, personal identity goes were the consciousness goes, according …show more content…
Locke does not believe memory extends beyond personal identity. Meaning, at the ripe old age of 67, Hume would agree that you can recall your younger self at the age of two years old even if you have no specific memory of being two years old – but Locke does not permit or agree. I do not agree with Locke in that I am not the same person because my conscious or thinking cannot recall my past memories. Therefore, I find Hume’s idea of personal identity more convincing in that the origin of the self is experiences with others and by having a number of experiences the mind forms the idea of necessary
Choosing between Descartes and Leibniz’s understanding of the relationship between mind and body, I would say that Leibniz offers a more satisfying theory of the mind and body interaction than Descartes. Let me explain why by understand Leibniz’s and Descartes view on mind and body.
Descartes came up with a concept called Dualism of the mind and body, where he believed that there are two distinct substances; 1) matter of which the essential property fits together extended in space (like body, chairs, and rocks). 2) the mind or immaterial, of which the essential property is that it ‘thinks’ (like thoughts and ideas) which take no physical space – these are things that our mind is made up of. The nature of the mind a thinking non-extended …show more content…
Let me explain why by understanding Locke’s and Hume’s view of personal identity, based on a personal experience.
In 2006, while driving, I had a severe automobile accident on Highway 71 southbound, driving 70 miles per hour, my vehicle flipped over several times (I am told my vehicle flipped over 8 times by my mother and son who was in the vehicle with me). Finally coming to a halt after sliding upside down on the highway were I lost consciousness and I was pronounced dead on the scene – but I still live today. I cannot recall my past self. I am one with two beginnings, an exception to the rule – no doubt.
Locke would argue that I am not the same person because my conscious or thinking cannot recall my past memories. I have no psychological continuity. Because your consciousness determines your personal identity, according to Locke, not your body or personality. Has my identity changed? I say no, I am still the same person even though I cannot recall my past memories due to an accident that broke the continuity of my consciousness. Do I in-fact have two beginnings or do my past and present self share one beginning. Even more so, old age can be the cause of my consciousness or thinking – once again breaking my psychological continuity – not being able to recall my past and often present memories. Therefore, personal identity goes were the consciousness goes, according …show more content…
Locke does not believe memory extends beyond personal identity. Meaning, at the ripe old age of 67, Hume would agree that you can recall your younger self at the age of two years old even if you have no specific memory of being two years old – but Locke does not permit or agree. I do not agree with Locke in that I am not the same person because my conscious or thinking cannot recall my past memories. Therefore, I find Hume’s idea of personal identity more convincing in that the origin of the self is experiences with others and by having a number of experiences the mind forms the idea of necessary