PERSONAL IDENTITY, REDUPLICATION AND SPATIO-TEMPORAL CONTINUITY

1978 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Elliot
Philosophy ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 66 (257) ◽  
pp. 339-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Giles

What is it about having a body that might dispose us to think it a plausible candidate for the basis of personal identity? The answer seems plain: the body is a physical object which, as long as it exists, is spatio-temporally continuous throughout the different moments of its existence. In consequence, myself of today can be said to be the same person as myself of twelve years ago so far as my body of today is spatio-temporally continuous with my body of twelve years ago. Exponents of this view are not, of course, denying that over time a person's body will or may undergo various changes; rather they are claiming that so long as these changes occur within a body which maintains a spatio-temporal continuity, then the identity of the person whose body it is will be ensured.


Author(s):  
Galen Strawson

This chapter examines John Locke's theory of personal identity, which he has defined in terms of the reach of consciousness in beings who qualify as persons (being in particular fully self-conscious, able to think of past and future, and “capable of a law”). It starts with the notion that a person is an object of a certain sort, and must exemplify a certain sort of temporal continuity, if it is to continue to exist. Locke assumes that any candidate person has such continuity. The chapter also considers which parts of a subject of experience's continuous past are features or aspects or parts of the person that it now is before concluding with an analysis of Joseph Butler's incorrect identification of consciousness with memory in his objection to Locke's argument that a person can survive a change in its thinking substance even if its thinking substance is immaterial.


Dialogue ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Radden

Do our customary notions of shame, blame and guilt require us to adopt a particular view of the self's singularity and invariance through time? Consider the intriguing case of John Demjanjuk, tried in Israel during 1987 and 1988 for the crimes of “Ivan the Terrible,” a concentration camp guard at Treblinka in Poland, during 1942–43. John Demjanjuk, a retired factory worker living in Cleveland, Ohio, appeared banal at his trial—old, quiet, ordinary and helpless; descriptions from survivors of Treblinka cast Ivan as monstrous in his vigorous brutality. Should John be found guilty and punished for Ivan's crimes? This question takes us beyond any answers sought at the trial. Even if the spatio-temporal identity of the later John and earlier Ivan had been established conclusively, still the justice of punishing the later man for the earlier one's crimes may be questioned. For a philosophical puzzle of personal identity lingers: is the later John the same person as the earlier Ivan? In cases such as this the passage of time and radical changes of character and personality seem to invite the notion that one self or person has succeeded another in the same body. If this were so, would—or should—culpability transfer undiminished from one self to another?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document