Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Locke and his successors ground personal identity in continuity of memory and psychological connectedness, not in stable character traits.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Memory is unreliable and reconstructive; relying on it makes personal identity too contingent on cognitive accidents rather than something fundamental.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The transitivity problem: chains of overlapping memories connect me to my childhood self, but childhood-me shares no direct memories with present-me.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Character traits (values, dispositions, moral commitments) constitute who we are more fundamentally than disconnected memory episodes ever could.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Memory continuity provides empirical criteria for personal identity that don't rely on unobservable metaphysical entities like immaterial souls.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
We intuitively judge identity by psychological connections: amnesia victims seem like different people, and this reflects how identity actually works.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Character traits fluctuate throughout life (reformed criminals, converts), yet we consider them the same person—proving character isn't identity's basis.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.