Need a bit of help with Locke & soul

[tracyfan_1]

i need some help to expand my essay. i am having trouble identifying a problem with lockes proposal that says having the same soul means you are dealing with the same person, and you know you are dealing with the same soul because its the same soul.
But you can easily just say something contradictory to that by stating that how would you know if you are dealing with the same soul if you can never really see the soul.

How can i make the proposal Locke makes better by modifying it? i need some help strengthening how being the same person means being the same soul.

what can i fix to make it possible?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by tracyfan_1

i need some help to expand my essay. i am having trouble identifying a problem with lockes proposal that says having the same soul means you are dealing with the same person, and you know you are dealing with the same soul because its the same soul.
But you can easily just say something contradictory to that by stating that how would you know if you are dealing with the same soul if you can never really see the soul.

How can i make the proposal Locke makes better by modifying it? i need some help strengthening how being the same person means being the same soul.

what can i fix to make it possible?

you know you are dealing with the same soul because its the same soul.

Where does Locke say that? Exactly what does he say?

[tracyfan_1]

it is in the book p3rsonal identity and immortality. a man named sam is trying to show his friend that is dying that there is a possibility of you surviving your death.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by tracyfan_1

it is in the book p3rsonal identity and immortality. a man named sam is trying to show his friend that is dying that there is a possibility of you surviving your death.

But does he really say the words, "you know you are dealing with the same soul because it is the same soul"? If not, then what exactly does he say, and where did you get the idea that was what he was saying? Can you quote the passage to me?

[tracyfan_1]

the passage is a bit lengthy,
it has to deal with personal identity.


Person A and Person B are numerically identical iff A and B have the same soul.


To clarify, Both person A and B are the same people just at different times.

EDIT: John Perry!!! not John Locke.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by tracyfan_1

the passage is a bit lengthy,
it has to deal with personal identity.


Person A and Person B are numerically identical iff A and B have the same soul.


To clarify, Both person A and B are the same people just at different times.

EDIT: John Perry!!! not John Locke.

Who is John Perry? I don't know what to say unless I see the passage. It is just silly to say that you know you are dealing with the same soul because it is the same soul. If Locke wrote that, it must be a joke.

[tracyfan_1]

i am going to reference to a different webpage so you can get a better understanding of what i am talking about.

V83.0010 Central Problems in Philosophy

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by tracyfan_1

i am going to reference to a different webpage so you can get a better understanding of what i am talking about.

V83.0010 Central Problems in Philosophy

If the criterion for "same person" is, "same soul", but if there is no criterion for, "same soul", then, of course, the "same soul" criterion is useless. The issue seems to be whether even if something does survive death, whether what survives death will be me. Why should I care if when I die, something survives, if what survives is not me? But to say that what survives is the soul, but not give any reason for supposing the soul is me, is pointless.

I hope this helps.

[tracyfan_1]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

If the criterion for "same person" is, "same soul", but if there is no criterion for, "same soul", then, of course, the "same soul" criterion is useless. What else would you like to ask about that?

i just somehow have to make the proposal stronger in order to not be faced with the objection given by gretchen. or find a weakness in gretchens objection


Proposal #1: A is the same person as B iff A and B have the same soul.

Objection: you can never see the soul, so you never know if you are dealing with the same soul from one time to another.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by tracyfan_1

i just somehow have to make the proposal stronger in order to not be faced with the objection given by gretchen. or find a weakness in gretchens objection


Proposal #1: A is the same person as B iff A and B have the same soul.

Objection: you can never see the soul, so you never know if you are dealing with the same soul from one time to another.

If you mean by "making the proposal stronger" that you have to give a way of deciding whether A and B have to same soul in order to decide whether A and B are the same person, I don't see how to do this. Of course, visibility is not the only way of doing this, but I don't know of any other way. Do you? But, as I said, if there is no way of deciding whether A and B are the same person, other than deciding whether A and B have the same soul, and if there is no way of deciding whether A and B have the same soul, then, of course, you are stuck, since the same soul criterion is useless.