Personal Identity Existence and What Matters

<p>It will be useful to begin with an extensive introduction to personhood in general.</p><p>Like many other terms philosophers oftentimes use the word 'person' differently from</p><p>the colloquial use of the word. This colloquial use is usually meant to be singular for</p><p>'people' or to mean 'a human being'. Although philosophers do use the word in these</p><p>ways they also use it in yet another way. Our first question then I will call The</p><p>Personhood Question: What is it to be a person? That is what makes persons different</p><p>from non-persons? What do persons have that non-persons do not have? Are human</p><p>beings the only candidates for persons or are there (or could there be) nonhuman persons?</p><p>Many philosophers throughout history have discussed these questions and</p><p>suggested answers to them. A common trend from the Early Modern Period of Western</p><p>philosophy (specifically Descartes and Locke) was to favor the mental aspect as essential</p><p>to personhood. For Descartes you are your mind. That is you are an immaterial</p><p>substance that thinks. The Cartesian view of personhood is thus associated with the</p><p>person's soul. Locke similarly described a person as a thinking intelligent being that</p><p>has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself the same thinking thing in</p><p>different times and places.1 According to him you are a conscious being that persists by</p><p>means of continued consciousness and memory. For both Descartes and Locke a person</p><p>is a conscious agent capable of interacting with and experiencing the world and</p><p>generating plans or desires upon which to act.</p>