Introduction
Identification of personality, otherwise the self, is an interesting subject in philosophical studies. Psychologists argue that people start trying to define the self from a small age. They also argue that people are always trying to find what defines them. Since they realize their bodies are different from other items within their environment at a small age (Lumsden 5-6). Interestingly, this discovery begins a journey towards the discovery of personality. There are different views on this idea from the readings in Hallman’s Traversing Philosophical Boundaries. The different writers whose works feature in this book have different opinions on individualism and its relation to the mind and body. In philosophy, it is difficult to explain this because people have different opinions about themselves. These opinions shape a person’s description of him or herself. This becomes clear from the readings gathered in the book. The different writers offer varied explanations on this subject. This paper analyzes their opinions and selects the writer who gives the best description of identity. From the readings published, I can infer that John Locke gives the most convincing view of personality in his reading On Personal Identity.
Main body
Locke holds that people’s conscious memories explain their views and convictions on the self and their self-identification. He explains that humans have a conscious mind, which influences their opinions on individuality in whatever situation they currently. In addition, he argues identity relates to the mind because it is a result of it and not the body or the soul (Hallman 10-11). Experiences shape people’s views and perceptions of an individual. In my own opinion, this is the best explanation of individuality out of all the definitions in the readings. Other authors such as Derek Parfit (Hallman 51-57), try to offer the same explanation, but they do not connect the personality with the mind and soul. On the other hand, John Locke offers insight into how the mind affects people’s opinions of identity (Hallman 10-11). His main argument is that memories shape the unique views that people have about personal identity. This explanation of the self is reasonable because one cannot identify him or herself using any logical method other than his or her past. Thoughts and memories that people have forgotten do not influence their view of individuality.
Another reason I agree with this author’s position on the description of the self, being a result of experiences is that humans discover through experience. From an early age, one discovers he or she is different from other objects surrounding him or her. This is the experience gained from observation. This also explains the author’s argument that human personality comprises of two substances: the body, which calls material, and the soul, which he terms immaterial. He uses the story of the Prince and the Cobbler to explain this idea (Hallman 11). I concur with this because besides the opinion one has of him or herself, others will still have their opinion about who is the person. Therefore, the body becomes material because people mostly will identify themselves through what they see. Since the soul is invisible, people can never define one using it, but instead will use the physical part of humans, which is the body. The person is what people can observe. Psychologists use this idea of defining individuality through observation to explain the self. They argue that people start to discover themselves from a small age after discovering the differences between objects surrounding them and their bodies. This observation generates the curiosity to find out what makes a person. It also forms the basis for the different views on the self that people have. This makes it accurate to argue that individualism changes from time to time and people to people.
All these authors agree that the self does not remain static throughout a person’s life, but Locke gives a better explanation for this than the others do. In his work, he attempts to distinguish the two, though in a rather unclear manner. Overall, he tries to explain the different views of personality. In addition, he argues that individual perception results from the interaction of the mind, soul, and body. He explains this concept using the story of the Prince and the Cobbler. Later he states that after the prince and the cobbler exchanged their bodies people viewed and described the Prince as the cobbler. This was the definition that people had of the prince’s self, but his soul remained the same. His main argument is, for one to be complete the soul, mind, and body must interact. Richert and Harris echo similar sentiments; they argue that the self is a result of the interaction of the mind, body, and soul. They call it the principle of dualism (1-2). This supports Locke’s ideas of the same, which I also find convincing because, without the body and soul, the person no longer exists. Without the soul, personal individuality cannot exist, but other people’s views about the individual remain because people define others’ individuality using the body.
Locke speaks of the self because of the conscious mind. This implies that people define themselves using what is in their minds. Based on this, many people choose to identify with their current environment and activities. They also gain experience through discovery, which begins early in life and continues. The process makes humans learn what defines who they are, and what makes them different from others. The idea behind this is to help people understand who they are. It also incorporates discovering the different selves of others to define us (Shusterman 15). All this makes use of the conscious mind. This is a logical argument that makes sense because one cannot explain the self without referring to what they experience.
As much as I agree with Locke’s belief in personality, I object to the argument that people should not be punished for what they cannot remember (Hallman 11). The self comprises two components the body and soul. They only fail to remember something because it is no longer in their conscious mind. This does not make them innocent for crimes they cannot remember because memory is not the only aspect that defines an individual. There will always be the presence of a third party in defining the self. This is clear in his explanation of the soul and body. He clearly states that even if the soul would shift to another body, people’s notion of the body would remain. This notion is the third-person opinion, which is always present when defining the individual personality. This means that, before God judges someone, He would consider the third party to decide whether to punish one. This is contrary to Locke’s argument, where he argues that even God cannot punish one for what they cannot remember.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the self remains a difficult subject to explain or even understand. As a result, it is a topic of argument in many social disciplines and philosophies. Different people have varied views on this subject because of their varied thoughts and feelings. People define whom they are using the knowledge they have gained during life; this is mostly because of the conscious mind.
Works Cited
Hallman, Max O. Traversing philosophical boundaries (4th edition). Wadsworth Publishing, 2006.
Lumsden, David. “Whole life narratives and the self.” Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 20.1 (2013): 1-10.
Richert, Rebekah, and Paul L. Harris. “Dualism revisited: Body vs. mind vs. soul.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 8.1-2 (2008): 1-2.
Shusterman, Richard. Body consciousness: A philosophy of mindfulness and somesthetic. Cambridge University Press, 2008.