PersonhoodAustin One man stood above the rest and came

       PersonhoodAustin Ward (2381931)Mrs. Mary GreggFriday 9:05                        A person, from an exterior perspective a person is a person,
a very simple answer for the very simple question which is what exactly is a
person? One man stood above the rest and came out and defined what a person
truly is. That man was John Locke. He stated that “in order to be a person, one
must be a thinking, intelligent being that has reason and can recognize itself
as itself at different times and places” (Locke 32). Generally, the
clarification between an individual and a man is the presence of an individual
character. An individual is basically a being that has a particular organic
make-up, which does not consider the similarity of an individual character. An
individual who has endured an unpleasant experience and has no mind capacity
would not be viewed as a person as indicated by Locke since they would never
again be in a condition of awareness, in this manner they would not have an
individual character. Not all philosophers agree with Locke’s statements. One
example of this is Thomas Reid. Reid opposes Locke’s diachronic theory through
his idea of memory links. Although both philosophers had different ideas, there
were some similarities in their work. They both focus on psychological
continuity, deprecating the significance of body congruity to one’s individual
character. In this essay, I will attempt to portray many different ideas but
most importantly I will attempt to substitute a different idea for the memory
link theory of diachronic personal identity which includes the interconnected
nature of person stages. To begin this paper, I will state my hypothesis on the
matter. My hypothesis of diachronic individual personality is generally based
around the refined memory connect hypothesis, however it consolidates the
possibility of a memory web as opposed to interface. The issue with the
hypothesis of memory joins is that it is one dimensional, which means it sees
recollections as just a progression of individual stages that extend back
unendingly. I see recollections and encounters as a web that is totally
interconnected. Each rise of this memory web speaks to a man arrange. I suggest
that these individual stages don’t need to interface with more than one other
individual stage, however they can conceivably. Picture a web graph, instead of
a steel chart. Say P1 is the point at which you figured out how to peruse and
compose as a tyke. At that point, say P2 is the point at which you took a test
in school about theory and P3 is the point at which you addressed random data
inquiries as a grown-up every week at a neighborhood bar, some of which about
reasoning. Next, say P4 is the point at which you composed letters to your
little girl as an elderly man about how you use to love incidental data
evenings at that bar, not ready to review particular random data questions. At
last, P5 speaks to when you fell and endured cerebrum harm that took your
capacity to peruse and compose, yet you could in any case review your family
and the demonstration of composing letters to your little girl. In this case,
P2 would be associated with P1 on the grounds that you utilized the ability of
perusing and composing on your logic exam. At that point, P3 would be
associated with P2 and P1 in light of the fact that you took rationality in
school while you answer the random data inquiries concerning logic and you
utilize the ability of writing to answer the inquiry. Next, P4 would be
associated with P3 and P1 in light of the fact that you went to incidental data
years prior, regardless of whether you don’t review particular inquiries, and
you’re utilizing the aptitude mastered amid P1 to compose the letter. Notice,
at P4, you don’t recollect the courses you took in school ,P2. At last, P5
would be associated just to P4 in light of the fact that you had a family and
composing letters to them, P4, regardless of whether not what the letters were
about. You can’t, notwithstanding, review the ability of perusing/composing,
P1, the courses you took in school, P2, or incidental data evenings at the bar,
P3. Albeit complex, this illustration indicates how recollections and
encounters that make up individual stages are interconnected. Some individual
stages, as P3 in the illustration, have three connections, P1, P2, and P4,
while others, as P5, just have one connection, P4. In the focal point of this
“memory web” is one’s close to home personality and it is associated
with every single air pocket in light of the fact that our character is an
accumulation of our recollections and encounters. The difference
between diachronic and synchronic questions of personal identity. An example of
a diachronic question would be can a robot develop into a person over time,
meaning can its mentality form into thinking like a human. An example of a
synchronic question would be can a robot be a person. At any given time, can a
robot be a thinking, reasonable being that can recognize itself as itself
(Green 145). There are also different “stages” of a robots life, the first
stage simple being P1. In this stage it is the beginning days if the robot’s
life where it can sometimes contain memories and other events that occurred. It
can also become same individual way of life as the robot amid a later
individual stage which is then called P2. This is different than the first
stage but contains the same basic principle of past memory and events that have
taken place (Green 144). The diachronic question of personal identity would
look to answer whether P1 and P2 can be two different person stages of the same
person, while the synchronic question simply seeks to answer if a being is a
being at all. Locke’s theory along with many other theories that  have been spoken over time faced much
scrutiny. John Locke’s diachronic theory states that personal self revolves
around the sameness of a rational being” (Locke 35). This faced scrutiny
because Locke’s theory confronted 
examination, particularly from contemporary rationalist Thomas Reid, who
closely restricted Locke’s idea that memory is a fundamental state of
individual character. Reid concurred with Locke as in he additionally thought
memory was an adequate part of individual personality. Reid pushed back against
the possibility that memory is a need to one’s close to personal character.
Reid considered it is conceivable to not have the capacity to review a
circumstance, but rather on the grounds that you can’t review it specifically
does not mean it isn’t a piece of your own character (Reid 115). Reid likewise
concocted the most grounded restriction to Locke’s hypothesis with his
“Brave Soldier Paradox”. The paradox goes that there was a boy who
was lashed for taking from an apple plantation, however that boy went ahead to
end up plainly an officer who took a bold remain in his initially fight. While
taking this overcome stand, the trooper was aware of being lashed as a boy,
however after the stand and life advanced, the fighter turned into a very much
regarded General, and as a General, the man was not aware of being whipped as a
young man, yet was aware of the stand he took before in life as an officer.
Reid contends that being whipped as a kid speaks to P1, or his first individual
stage, while being a trooper who took a valiant remain in fight speaks to P2,
which is the second individual phase of the person. At last, the very much
regarded General in the oddity speaks to P3, the last individual stage. In
spite of the fact that the very much regarded general can’t recollect occasions
from P1, he can recall occasions from P2, and P2 can recollect occasions from
P1, in this manner P3 recollects occasions from P1 in a roundabout way through
memory joins (Reid 116). This mystery represents a solid resistance to Locke’s
diachronic hypothesis since it demonstrates that despite the fact that one will
most likely be unable to recollect an occasion, they can recall a man organize
in which they could review that occasion, subsequently that early individual
stage is as yet a piece of that person’s close to home character. Locke’s
hypothesis can be adjusted to consider recollections of recollections. The
rationale Reid used to contradict Locke could be connected to Locke’s theory,
making an entire knew refined hypothesis revolved around memory joins (Green
150). Locke’s theory also has some very good points to it that
prove it true. He implies any adjustment in a person’s self is an adjustment in
their own character. Locke goes ahead to make the statement that one’s close to
personal character can just reach out the extent that their cognizance does,
since so as to be a man one must be a reasoning, or cognizant, being. In
Locke’s theory, cognizance is compared to memory, which is the most significant
part of his theory. Locke trusts that all together for an ordeal to be a piece
of one’s character, they should recall it. He contends that if a man in a later
individual stage P2, can recollect encounters from a prior individual stage P1,
at that point both individual stages are a piece of that individual’s close to
home personality (Locke 41). Interestingly, if the individual can’t recollect a
solitary affair from the prior individual stage, at that point Locke would
state that the individual who existed amid P1 and the one that exists amid P2
have two distinctive individual personalities. At the point when gotten some
information about awareness being intruded on, Locke would guarantee that this
raises worries about whether the individual is simply a similar considering,
consequently, Locke’s hypothesis makes the attestation that memory is a vital
and adequate state of individual personality (Locke 44). Since this is the
situation, it would be plausible, as indicated by Locke’s hypothesis, for a
person’s body to change, while their own character isn’t adjusted. Locke’s
hypothesis is based off of mental progression, which means individual character
lies exclusively in one’s cognizance, so as long as one has the same ceaseless
awareness, at that point their own personality would stay unaltered.The one thing not considered by either Locke or Reid is the
thought and significance of body coherence to individual personality. The two
speculations appear to trust that memory is the most essential part of
individual character, and if one’s focal sensory system was to be put into an
alternate body, and that person in the new body was as yet ready to review
occasions from individual stages where they had the past body, at that point
that person’s close to home personality has not changed (Green 152). The body
congruity theory contradicts this with the theoretical presence of a duplicator
machine that duplicates a man’s body and focal sensory system molecule by
molecule, however decimates the individual who enters it. As indicated by Locke
and Reid, this wouldn’t be an issue on the grounds that the individual who is
made in the machine would have an indistinguishable individual personality from
the person who entered it, since they have the indistinguishable body and focal
sensory system, so they can review prior individual phases of the individual
who entered the machine. Coherently, the appropriate response is no, in light
of the fact that the individual who turned out the machine wouldn’t be you, yet
rather a clone of you. You would be, generally, slaughtering yourself by
entering the machine, however as indicated by Locke and Reid, your own
personality would not change and the individual who left the machine would even
now be “you” (Green 151). Such an oddity raises worries about Locke
and Reid’s ideas of mental progression relating to individual character and
appears to offer that body congruity is significantly more vital than
beforehand thought with regards to one’s close to home personality.Obviously, figuring out what makes up one’s close to home
personality is significantly more intricate than one may expect. For quite a
long time, John Locke’s diachronic theory of memory being both a fundamental
and adequate part of individual personality was acknowledged, pretty much. Reid
at that point contradicted the essential part of Locke’s memory hypothesis of
individual character by offering the “Brave Soldier Paradox” and
having the capacity to recall a man arrange when one could recollect a prior
individual stage, regardless of whether one can’t recall that early individual
stage at their present individual stage. Locke’s hypothesis was then refined
and turned into the memory joins hypothesis, which I demonstrated isn’t
sufficiently comprehensive with regards to discovering one’s close to home
personality. Obviously, the main balanced hypothesis of individual personality
is my memory web hypothesis, which considers the interconnected idea of the
different recollections and encounters that individuals experience in the
individual phases of their life. It is these individual stages, all of which
that interface together to shape a one of a kind web, that make up our own
personality.                    Works
Cited Green, Mitchell, S. Engaging Philosophy.
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2006. Print. 143-154.Locke,
John. “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.” Perry, John. Personal
Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. 33-52.Reid,
Thomas. “Of Mr. Locke’s Account of Our Personal Identity.” Perry,
John. Personal Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.
113-118.