An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, Volume 1: MDCXC, Based on the 2nd Edition, Books 1 and 2Locke, John
Philosophy
An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, Volume 1: MDCXC, Based on the 2nd Edition, Books 1 and 2
Locke, John
Knowledge, Theory of -- Early works to 1800
But next, as to the first part of the question, Whether, if the same
thinking substance (supposing immaterial substances only to think) be
changed, it can be the same person? I answer, that cannot be resolved
but by those who know there can what kind of substances they are that
do think; and whether the consciousness of past actions can be
transferred from one thinking substance to another. I grant were the
same consciousness the same individual action it could not: but it
being a present representation of a past action, why it may not be
possible, that that may be represented to the mind to have been which
really never was, will remain to be shown. And therefore how far the
consciousness of past actions is annexed to any individual agent, so
that another cannot possibly have it, will be hard for us to determine,
till we know what kind of action it is that cannot be done without a
reflex act of perception accompanying it, and how performed by thinking
substances, who cannot think without being conscious of it. But that
which we call the same consciousness, not being the same individual
act, why one intellectual substance may not have represented to it, as
done by itself, what IT never did, and was perhaps done by some other
agent—why, I say, such a representation may not possibly be without
reality of matter of fact, as well as several representations in dreams
are, which yet whilst dreaming we take for true—will be difficult to
conclude from the nature of things. And that it never is so, will by
us, till we have clearer views of the nature of thinking substances, be
best resolved into the goodness of God; who, as far as the happiness or
misery of any of his sensible creatures is concerned in it, will not,
by a fatal error of theirs, transfer from one to another that
consciousness which draws reward or punishment with it. How far this
may be an argument against those who would place thinking in a system
of fleeting animal spirits, I leave to be considered. But yet, to
return to the question before us, it must be allowed, that, if the same
consciousness (which, as has been shown, is quite a different thing
from the same numerical figure or motion in body) can be transferred
from one thinking substance to another, it will be possible that two
thinking substances may make but one person. For the same consciousness
being preserved, whether in the same or different substances, the
personal identity is preserved.
16. Whether, the same immaterial Substance remaining, there can be two
Persons.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account