PH 202 Lecture 17: Notes for Day 17

45 views2 pages
Notes for Day 17
MORE ON PERSONAL IDENTITY:
The problem with this notion of personal identity: how can we describe two different consciousness
If you don't have memories at a certain age, then you had a different consciousness at that time in
comparison to your consciousness now
I have a different consciousness in comparison to when I was 3, but Locke says that I am the same
human being as I was when I was 3
Even if I had memories when I was 4, I did not have all the memories that I currently have
To Locke, identity of a human being is not similar to consciousness
Imagine you commit a crime but you had no consciousness of it: the person that lost his consciousness
at that time, that means the person who committed the crime is a completely different person to the
person who has consciousness because they are not morally responsible if they lost their consciousness
But I don't have access to someone's consciousness to see if they had a psychic break; the person may
be lying
So instead of relying on sameness of consciousness, I depend upon sameness of human being
This is an imperfect scenario but that is the best thing we have in regards of how to solve crimes in
regards to either consciousness or physical substance (human being)
KNOWLEDGE:
Knowledge has to do with ideas
Knowledge: Knowledge, then, seems to me to be nothing but the perception of the connection and
agreement, or disagreement and incompatibility, of any of our ideas.
This definition is kind of odd: we think knowledge is supposed to be about truth, specifically learning
about the facts regarding the world
But Locke says that knowledge has to do with the agreement or disagreement between our ideas
Knowledge is not whether ideas agree with reality, but if ideas agree with each other
We know something if our ideas agree with something that exists around us or outside in the world
Locke doesn't believe in this: he says that we only have access to our own experiences and ideas, not
anyone else's--> Since the mind in all its thoughts and reasonings has no immediate object other than its
own ideas, which are all it can contemplate, it is evident that our knowledge has to do only with them.
Knowledge is only based on our ideas, it can't beyond those ideas
Therefore, the scope of knowledge is limited
It is limited beyond our ideas
How do we extend knowledge beyond merely our ideas
Opposes Descartes: so we don't have an infinite mind
To Locke, we only have some finite amount of knowledge, we have a finite consciousness, and therefore
we have a finite mind (GOD IS THE ONLY BEING WITH AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE)
Remember, Descartes could not get past having knowledge of his existence, he couldn't prove anyone
else's existence
Agreement versus Disagreement: present ideas with new ideas
Like the idea of being a bachelor and have a wife at the same time
Locke says that the idea of a square disagrees with the idea of a circle
With simple agreements and disagreements, you can obtain intuitive knowledge
Intuitive knowledge: immediately compare two ideas and judge whether they agree or disagree; this
type of knowledge cannot be doubted, it doesn't require reasoning, it is already known
Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 2 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents

Related Questions