Critical Analysis of Locke's Theory of Personal Identity (PHL 210)

This essay examines John Locke's theory of personal identity, focusing on his arguments presented in "Essay Concerning Human Understanding." The essay analyzes Locke's distinction between different types of identity (substance, plants/animals, man, and personal identity) and emphasizes personal identity as a matter of consciousness and memory. The essay then discusses the relevance of Locke's thought experiments, such as the "Prince and the Cobbler" and "Waking and sleeping Socrates", to a case study involving a person in a different body. The author argues that according to Locke's theory, the person in the mirror is still the same person due to their consistent consciousness and memory of the past. The essay concludes by acknowledging criticisms of Locke's theory, particularly regarding the circularity of his argument and the brave officer paradox, and briefly discusses potential counterarguments Locke might offer.

Running head: PHILOSOPHY ESSAY
Philosophy Essay
Student’s name
University
Author’s note

1
PHILOSOPHY ESSAY
Q.1) The primary issue in question presented in the particular case study essentially deals
with John Lock’s theory of identity, more precisely, personal Identity. in the Book II Chapter
XXVII “On Identity and Diversity” of his seminal work The Essay Concerning Human
Understanding, Locke presents his idea of identity through a series of thorough arguments and
discourses on relation.
Locke attributes identity to only three kinds of entities—God, finite spirit or human
beings and material objects. According to him, God is without beginning, unalterable, eternal
and all-pervasive. Hence, the identity of God cannot be doubted. However, with regard to the
identification of the identity of the rest of the entities, Locke differentiates four kinds of identity,
namely the identity of substance, the identity of plants and animals, the identity of man and the
identity of the same man or personal identity (Locke, 1975).
Locke describes the identity of substance based on his principal of individuation—
Principium Individualtionis—where he regards existence as the principle of identity (Essay,
Book II: Chapter XXVII: 3). He argues that as long as an atom exists, it remains the same atom.
To elucidate, if an atom persists through a time, it is considered to be the same atom as before, as
it has the same beginning or origin as the previous one. This principle can be further extended to
a mass of atoms, constituting a material object as well. As long as the atoms remain the same
atoms that constructs the material objects, it is regarded the same object. However, if a single
atom is changed through gain or loss, the essence of the object will change, altering its identity
completely
A different principle of existence has to be applied to expound the identity of a living
entity, as they drastically change their composition in the course of development. For example,
an acorn becomes a fully grown oak tree, but still considered as the same tree. The principle for

2
PHILOSOPHY ESSAY
defining identity for a living entity, as Lock defines, is “partaking in common life” (Essay, Book
II: Chapter XXVII: 4). The oak differs from a mass of matter on the merit of its distinct
organization. The mass of matter is simply cohesion of particles, united by an unguided force;
whereas a plant, e.g. the oak is a disposition of its components, which constitutes its parts. And
the organization of its components is disposed in a way that enables them to receive and
distribute nourishment so as to form and continue the life of the plant. Locke further argues that
the identity of lower animals can be understood in the same way.
Further, Locke remarks that the identity of a finite being, i.e. a man can also be explained
through the principle of common life. The participation of the fleeting constituent components in
the same common life, essentially organized in the same body, is the only way to explain the
identity of a man. Locke remarks: “If you place the identity of man in anything but this, you’ll
find it hard to make an embryo and an adult the same man, or a well man and a madman the
same man” (Essay, Book II: Chapter XXVII: 6). He further argues, by the concept of soul, this
unity of identity cannot be understood, for that could attribute the same identity to different
persons existing at different times at different places. Hence, the ideas of “same man” and “same
soul” are essentially distinct.
Finally, Locke reaches his notion of personal identity through a discernment of ‘same
man’ and ‘same person’. He maintains it is essential to distinguish the ideas of man and person in
order to grasp the idea of personal identity. Hence, discarding the traditional definition of man
being a rational animal, he defines person as “A thinking intelligent being, that has reason and
reflection, and can consider 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” (Essay, Book II: Chapter XXVII: 9). Locke argues that every human being

3
PHILOSOPHY ESSAY
has their own sensations and perceptions of seeing, smelling, tasting, feeling or thinking, and are
aware of themselves doing so. And through this awareness of feelings etc. as well as the ability
to reflect on them, human beings identify themselves as ‘self’. Therefore, Locke argues that
personal identity does not reside in the identity of substance or identity of a man; rather it is the
identity of consciousness. It is a matter of psychological continuity. If the substance which thinks
and rationalizes change, it can be the same person.
Given the four types of identity that Locke discusses in his discourse, it is the issue of
personal identity or the identity of the same person that is relevant in this case.
Q.2) Among the several issues that Locke discusses in his Essay, the instances that stand out the
most in relevance with the present case study, are that of the “Prince and the Cobbler” and
“Waking and sleeping Socrates”.
In the passage 15 of the On Identity and Diversity, Locke conjures a hypothetical
condition where the soul of a prince has entered a cobbler’s body. However, he retains all his
‘princely thoughts’ or the consciousness while residing in the cobbler’s material body. In this
situation, the prince eventually ends up persisting in the material body of the cobbler, while
partaking in the common life of the later. By this logic, the prince should be identified as the
cobbler. However, this is not the case, for the prince retains his consciousness along with all his
thoughts and memories while being the prince, and at the same time, continuing to think like the
person he was before ending up in the cobbler’s body. “To everyone but himself he would be the
same cobbler, the same man.” (Essays, Book II: Chapter XXVII: 15). To elucidate, he might be
considered as the cobbler by the rest of the world, he by himself will be aware of the fact that he
is the prince, not the cobbler. Even if he is not the same man as before, he remains the same
person that he was.

4
PHILOSOPHY ESSAY
In another passage, Locke describes a diabolical situation of the “Waking and sleeping
Socrates”. In the passage 19 of the chapter he explains, “If Socrates awake doesn’t partake of the
same consciousness as Socrates sleeping, they aren’t the same person.” To elucidate, the same
Socrates sleeping and Socrates waking does not share the same consciousness, i.e. he in one state
does not have the memory or awareness of the other state, then it is not accurate to consider the
two states being of the same man, hence they are two different persons. Locke further argues that
punishing Socrates waking for some offence that Socrates sleeping committed, it would be as
unjust as punishing someone’s twin brother for his crime (Locke, 1975).
Among these two incidents, the former directly corresponds to the case study presented
here, since Melanie can identify herself while in Alisha’s body. She has the memory of her life in
Melanie’s body, but not any memory of Alisha’s. Hence, the absence of Aisha’s body confirms
that the person in the mirror is not Aisha herself, but Melanie.
Q.3) According to Locke’s theory of personal identity, when I look at the mirror in a hotel room,
I am essentially and most certainly looking at myself, neither Melanie, nor Aisha. As per Locke’s
theory, the consciousness of one’s self, the memory of the past thought and activities, and the
ability to reflect on one’s thought constitutes the idea of a person. Even if I see a person with
different bodily features, or a different body altogether, I am still seeing myself in the mirror. As
long as I can recollect my past, my childhood, my parents and friends, my occupation or, for that
matter, my thoughts and feelings as myself, I am certainly not looking at anybody else in the
mirror, but myself.
Q.4) Although a significant approach to solve the riddle of personal identity, Lockean notion
essentially based on his memory theory, is subject to several criticism. Joseph Butler argues that
there is an inherent circularity in his theory. Locke failed to recognise that the relation of

5
PHILOSOPHY ESSAY
consciousness essentially presupposes identity, and therefore, cannot constitute identity itself.
Butler argues that one can recollect only his/ her own experiences. However, it is not the
experience of such memory that makes a person himself. Rather, one can remember his past only
because it is essentially his memory. Although the memory can unite the identity of the person
with the memory, it does not identify the agent of that memory as himself. Hence, butler argues,
whatever I consider as my memory is in reality the memory of the substance that constitutes me
(Shoemaker & Tobia, 2018).
Thomas Reid also objected to Lockean concept of personal identity on the grounds of
absurdity. He presents the brave officer paradox to refute Locke’s argument, where a retired
soldier could remember his escapade in stealing the food provision of his enemy while young,
but has no memory of stealing his neighbour’s apple when he was younger. According to
Locke’s argument, the soldier can thus be held accountable for the bravery in stealing his
enemy’s provision, but not the unjust act of stealing his neighbour’s apple (Gallie, 2012).
However, Locke might argue against both Reid and Butler by stating they maintain a substance-
based notion of identity, which is radically distinct from Locke’s view. If they agree with Locke
on what identity is constituted of, their arguments will not sustain (Nimbalkar, 2011).

6
PHILOSOPHY ESSAY
References
Gallie, R. D. (2012). Thomas Reid and ‘The Way of Ideas’ (Vol. 45). Springer Science &
Business Media.
Locke, J. (1975). Of identity and diversity.
Locke, J. (2010). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Book II: Ideas.
Nimbalkar, N. (2011). John Locke on personal identity. Mens sana monographs, 9(1), 268.
Shoemaker, D., & Tobia, K. P. (2018). Personal identity.