The English philosopher—and physician—John Locke* continued exploring the themes Descartes had initiated, both in terms of the nature of knowledge (epistemology) and the nature of the self. He shared with Descartes a scientist’s perspective, seeking to develop knowledge based on clear thinking, rigorous analysis, and real-world observation and experimentation. However, Locke brought a very different approach to this epistemological enterprise. Descartes believed that we could use the power of reason to achieve absolutely certain knowledge of the world and then use this rationally based knowledge to understand our world of experience. His extensive work in mathematics served as a model, convincing him that there were absolute truths and knowledge waiting to be discovered by reasoned, disciplined reflection.
Locke’s work as a physician, rather than a mathematician, provided him with a very different perspective. The physician’s challenge is to gather information regarding the symptoms a patient is experiencing, and then relate these symptoms to his (the physician’s) accumulated knowledge of disease. Although a successful doctor uses sophisticated reasoning abilities in identifying patterns and making inferences, his conclusions are grounded in experience. Knowledge, in other words, is based on the careful observation of sense experience and/or memories of previous experiences. Reason plays a subsequent role in helping to figure out the significance of our sense experience and to reach intelligent conclusions.
To sum up: For Descartes, our reasoning ability provides the origin of knowledge and final court of judgment in evaluating the accuracy and value of the ideas produced. For Locke, all knowledge originates in our direct sense experience, which acts as the final court of judgment in evaluating the accuracy and value of ideas. As a result, Descartes is considered an archetypal proponent of the rationalist view of knowledge, whereas Locke is considered an archetypal advocate of the empiricist view of knowledge.
These are themes that we will be exploring in depth in future chapters. For now, we will focus on the way in which these contrasting approaches to the world influence their views on the nature of the self.
True to his philosophical commitment to grounding his ideas in sense experience, Locke, in his essay entitled “On Personal Identity” (from his most famous work, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding) engages in a reflective analysis of how we experience our self in our everyday lives.
In this initial passage, Locke makes the following points, implicitly asking the question of his readers, “Aren’t these conclusions confirmed by examining your own experiences?”
To discover the nature of personal identity, we’re going to have to find out what it means to be a person.
A person is a thinking, intelligent being who has the abilities to reason and to reflect.
A person is also someone who considers itself to be the same thing in different times and different places.
Consciousness—being aware that we are thinking—always accompanies thinking and is an essential part of the thinking process.
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.” Consider 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 activity 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. 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 thinking. 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.
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 following 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 remember 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.
It’s a rather gruesome example Locke provides, but it makes his point. Every aspect 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.
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 evaluation? 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.