Tags: Business Start Up PlansResearch Paper Business EthicsThesis Statement On Why Japan Attacked Pearl HarborEssay On TubewellOwl Purdue Essay ApaWriting A Case Study AnalysisEssay About Learning English
Strict identity claims are simply false when talking about ourselves as persisting through time.The bundle of perceptions changes with each experience, therefore, there is no one enduring ‘self’ that persists through each experience.Are we not a collection or a bundle of perceptions at any given time?
For instance, the claim that a book at time t1 is the same book at time t1 1 is an identity claim.
Metaphysical questions surrounding identity are broad and vexing.
This is why we call a door a door even though we may never have seen that particular door which we are referring to.
Hume gives us a much deeper story than this, but, again, I’m purposely being quick and fast here.
If we are not a bundle or collection of perceptions then what are we?
This bundle will surely include our memories of our past and the current perceptions I am taking in now.Think of the bundle of perceptions as a pile of bricks.Once we add another brick to the pile the pile has changed.Initially, I wanted to reject this view out of hand. First, our minds, according to Hume, readily pass from one thing to another.How could it be that I am not the same as I was a few hours ago? When things resemble one another we automatically relate them with use of our imagination.This view conforms to our ordinary usage of identity terms and makes sense, prima facie, but is has some glaring problems. Hume says that all that “we” are is a bundle of perceptions at any given reference point.Earlier, when referencing the book I asked a series of questions. The ‘self’ for Hume, when perceived as something fixed through time, is an illusion.For instance, what does it mean for an object to be the same as itself?If an object does change (even slightly) what does it mean for that object, person or not, to be the same? How about if I remove your brain and place it into someone else’s body, are you still you or does your change in body change who you are?Philosopher/Mathematician Gottfried Leibniz has a way of dealing with such questions. How about if I white out the pages and write new words on every page, same book? Identity claims seem to fall prey to the problem of vagueness, but, rather than focus on the problem I’d like to turn to some possible answers. If you think that the person that has your brain but a completely different body is you then you must reject the bodily identity theory in favor of a more specific, brain criterion theory (we’ll get back to the brain theory in subsequent posts).Leibniz Law, as it is referred to, claims that as well.” This all seems pretty straight-forward, right? Well, many of the things that we refer to on a day-to-day basis (even minute to minute) are changing (some changes are obvious while most are so slight that we don’t even recognize them). In light of what has been said thus far regarding the book example, what would it mean for any of ‘us’ to have an identity? Any way you cut it the brain is of crucial importance when thinking about personal identity, it seems much more important than the body, as a whole.