What follows is an extract of an unfinished essay I began a few years ago.Philosophy has struggled to give a satisfactory account of personal identity, especially considering developments in science and scenarios in science fiction that have provided material for thought experiments. The rejection of the persistent self has ramifications for ethics. If I am a different person from the man who married Mrs X twenty years ago, am I under any obligation to keep vows that he made? In theological circles, this question has a bearing on the judgement of sin. Is God right to judge the person I am today for sins committed by “someone else” in the past? The unease that this question provokes has caused people of faith to re-engage with the question of selfhood and personal identity.
Modern cellular biology provided grounds for rejecting the view that the body was the source of personal identity. In the wake of this development, it has become necessary to seek less tangible hypotheses to account for personal identity and personal moral agency. The soul is an obvious candidate (in the case of those who believe in its existence). Nevertheless, is the soul a sufficient condition for personal identity? As beings of the physical plane, our sensory experience mediates our conception of reality. It is hard to conceive of existing without referring to concepts derived from physical objects experienced by means of the body. Should we then posit that both the body and the soul are necessary conditions for personal identity?
People of faith, believing in beings such as angels and demons, might respond that these entities are persons: they have will, memory, intellect, and emotions. Nevertheless, physical bodies do not define such entities in the way that they do humans – even if one admits that such entities have the power to assume physical bodies (cf. Gen. 6:1-6). The presupposition that physicality is not necessary for existence provides a foundation for belief in such entities.
Dreams and hallucinations provide another challenge to the body-soul theory of personal identity. Granted, physical bodies are necessary in order to have dreams and hallucinations. Neuroscience provides an explanation for chemical activity in the brain as the basis of these experiences. However, the point is not about the basis of the experience, but about its content, and the distinction between hallucination and perception. Perception (assuming the rejection of idealism), is an experience of the physical world: in perception, we are “connected” to the world around us. In what sense could we say that we are “connected” to the real physical world when we experience a hallucination? To be sure, we are in it, but we do not “experience” it as it is; we experience a fiction.
What does it mean to call the contents of a hallucination “fiction”? While one might quibble about the terminology, substituting words such as “unreal” or “untrue”, the point is that it is desirable to assert that what goes on in a hallucination is not an accurate representation of the external world near the subject at the time of the hallucination. This principle of “inaccuracy” allows the subject to categorize the experience as a hallucination after he has compared the content of his hallucination with the testimony of a reliable witness who was also present at the time. When this option is unavailable, the subject must either accept scepticism or depend upon another criterion or set of criteria to make an inference that the hallucination is in some way inconsistent with how the world is.
Now hallucinations and optical illusions have served as the bases for arguments against direct realism, often leading to indirect realism. For Descartes, dreams and the “evil demon” hypothesis, in conjunction with other reasoning, led to the conclusion that his existence did not depend upon a body. He was, however, unable to prove his claim that identity persisted from thought to thought: the evil demon could theoretically supply him with false memories. Even if one accepts arguments for the claims that God exists and that He is not a deceiver, if we acknowledge the existence of mental illness, personal, if not global, scepticism threatens. Mental illness replaces the evil demon in this paradigm. Further reasoning (and evidence?) is required to support the claim that I am not experiencing false memories and false perceptions.
The concept DECEIT (intentional misrepresentation) is necessary in order to understand and use the evil demon hypothesis, while the concept CONFUSION (vel sim.) is necessary in the case of the mental illness hypothesis. Both of these concepts presuppose a difference between what is “perceived” and what actually is the case. The subject does not require a previous “perceptual” experience with which to compare the present one. There are (at least) three reasons for this. Firstly, the subject may not be aware that he is having a deceptive experience: illusions can be subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception. Secondly, in the case where the subject does believe that he is having a deceptive experience, the axioms or “experiences” that provide the frame of reference for the comparison and reasoning may themselves be false memories that the evil demon has supplied. Thirdly, the ability to analyse an experience may presuppose a set of axioms and abilities, and indeed the concept EXPERIENCE, but that does not entail that the subject must have had previous experiences.
Empiricism cannot be of help here. While empiricism claims the subject must have derived the concept EXPERIENCE from a particular experience (or set of experiences), experiences do not provide us with knowledge of the absolute but of the particular. That being the case, empiricism is unable to provide conclusive support for the claim that there is a substance persisting from one experience to another. Berkeley denied the existence of physical substance altogether, while Hume argued that the concept SUBSTANCE is the product of confusing the concept SIMILARITY with QUANTITIVE IDENTITY. Thus, the empiricist cannot demonstrate the synthetic claim, “I persist from thought to thought”, with deductive certainty, since it falls on the “matters of fact” side of Hume’s “fork”. At best, he can make a very compelling inductive argument. The possibility of scepticism remains. Rationalism, however, may offer a possible solution. The rationalist who holds to concept and knowledge innatism must accept the possibility that the evil demon has implanted false concepts and the illusion of knowledge in the (unsuspecting) subject. However, the rationalist may object that the demon must have persistent personal identity in order to force an illusion on the subject. Is this the case? Suppose that the demon has just winked into existence (spontaneous generation) – this itself is a leap, but is permitted for the sake of the thought experiment. The demon proceeds to create the subject, together with his false memories and axioms, and places him inside an illusion. In positing creation and the illusion as two distinct (but linked) moments, one is affirming the notion of IDENTITY, for the same demon persists from the moment he creates the subject to the moment he controls him in the middle of the illusion.
All Along the Watchtower 
My atheist friends have a devil of a time explaining where the mind and the personality comes from. Even cats have personalities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. Atheists have two problems here, since they are usually empiricists: (A) empiricism cannot invalidate the claim that the soul exists; (B) empiricism cannot actually say what matter is in philosophical terms (the problem of idealism).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, empiricists were ultimately the first philosophers–the pre-Socratics. And like the pre-Socratics, they have a difficulty explaining knowledge and truth without metaphysics and “form.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This brings to mind the movie A Beautiful Mind about John Forbes Nash Jr. who was able to master his hallucinations and live among the rational and ‘normal’ people. Though psychotic and inundated with false visions and hallucinations as well as voices he eventually was able to discount them and recognize them. This, of course, is a case where something (most people presume) has to do with the chemistry or the mis-wiring of the brain, neurons and such. But it is something that most psychotics cannot sort through. They are usually institutionalized or they commit horrible acts or are suicidal.
For the most ordinary of people on a spiritual path to their perceived end (which is God Himself), I think it is enough to see that the soul has a natural draw to God whilst the body has a natural draw to its own pleasures and desire. Thereby it is necessary for the mind to exert its will to subjugate the body to the mind. We do this usually to avoid getting arrested and/or shunned by society. But this is not good enough. We must be mindful that the body deceives us, as does the devil, (remember the Catholic teaching of the world, the flesh and the devil), and can scream out for things illicit for the salvation of our souls . . . as do the other two. It takes perseverance to temper this violence that our bodies inflict on our souls and there are spiritual books relating to the TRAINING OF THE WILL to help us in our struggles though they are unnecessary since once taught what the Christian message and life should be we simply keep picking ourselves up after a fall and try, try again until we have overcome the temptation by the help of God and the desires of the will residing in our souls . . . that which wants us to tend our entire being toward God. This too is the subject of books such as Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence and other such titles. Few can make this leap in an instant and all must be vigilant in keeping to the straight and narrow. Most will not finish this battle here on earth though some very few do.
So personality is a combination of things but is seen in others by their actions and reactions in a variety of situations as well as their moods and lack of or abundance of joy that they may radiate about them . . . although these measures do not truly get to the substance of the personality itself. For we know not the inner turmoil or battle which each individual may be engaged with their own desires, demons and temptations. So perhaps that is why we are told to judge as we would like to be judged. By all means, we can judge sin but to judge an individual (a person) by their personality becomes a nightmare which we can probably best leave to God as we have not the ability to decipher that which is not apparent. And appearances often deceive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Our minds face the problem of subjectivity, which Kant explored in great depth in his “Critique of Pure Reason”. Our minds cannot derive the universal (which Philip and I have discussed in various posts) from experience itself, which leads me to believe that the mind must ultimately derive the concepts it needs regarding universals from God Himself. The concept of a soul depends on such concepts, because it presupposes he concept SUBSTANCE (or something very like it). It seems to me that we presuppose the existence of the soul for much of our thinking, especially ethics. By this means, we convict ourselves of sin, as St Paul describes in Romans. Children and people with severe learning difficulties do not fully grasp various essential ethical and metaphysical concepts, and for this reason, I believe God does not hold actions against them that would be blameworthy in a true moral agent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True, and yet even conscience is learnt and willed by the subject. It can be unformed, formed by acceptance of the physical realities of the body or society or by the soul that is awakened to the presence of itself and its final end.
When speaking of who we are we might point a finger to our chest close to the heart; for we know that the finger is not us, the mind is not us, or any other organ of the human body. The person is as elusive as the soul, the heart (if speaking of love), or the will which can be trained but is subject to what it must be taught. If not taught then it is blameless to some degree and thus the Catholic’s teaching on invincible ignorance. It is a defect in the person not to inform itself of these deeper aspects of the human person and to desire to know its purpose, its origin or its goal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One can look back at the thoughts of Plotinus or even Lucretius as well. But no philosopher has yet been able to tell be what SUBSTANCE is in light of the new findings of science. All matter is composed of atoms and atoms of sub-atomic particles and space is filled with 98% of its content by ‘black matter’ and ‘black energy’ which are words used as placeholders of that which we do not understand. But it strikes me that the world ENERGY itself is a placeholder world for that which we cannot understand any better than we do infinity or soul or love etc. Energy is a bundle of ‘something’ or is it. We see it when it is bound together in a material object (whatever that is) and can feel it or taste it etc. and yet it is all simply energy or electric-magnetic waves or what have you. How is SUBSTANCE anymore real than a SOUL? I think the philosophers who were atheists might posit that REALITY is therefore similar to the Buddhist concept of life being an illusion or a dream of the sleeping Buddha. Those that weren’t maybe would find a greater belief and respect for the Christian idea of the super-natural and mystical realities of life . . . which continues to be the mystery that it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My good friend and his sibling’s inherited bipolar depression. Two of his siblings have killed themselves already. He said he simply ignores the voices in his head. His brother, whom I live with, tries but gets carried away sometimes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry to hear that. It is a terrible condition which my mother-in-law had and when she was younger all they did was give the patients electro-shock therapy. My wife has it but the medicines she is on has kept her on an even keel and one would never even suspect that she suffers from the same condition. Maybe there is help out there for your friend but you have to get the balance right and sometimes there is more to it than just a chemical imbalance and medicine won’t help at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good brother scoop, very glad to hear your wife has kept it at bay with meds.I cant imagine what its like to have that.
LikeLike
Substance tends to be a catch-all phrase. In regards to what it means to be human. Augustine uses it more or less the same as nature–what a thing is–in relation to being. This idea is explained by Aquinas and Thomistic philosophy that asserts that nature is a combination of material/form–hylomorphism. So there is a development here from Neoplatonism to Scholasticism within philosophy. It gets a bit more complicated but nature is a composite of substance and accidents; of course, this is where the doctrine of Transubstantiation rests.
I think a key here is to understand subsistence with the premise of substance. How I formulate the idea is to abstract a coke bottle as subsistence (ignoring that the bottle has its own quiddity) in which a coke bottle is the agent to where all accidents can exist such as the color of the bottle, the shape, the contrast, the painted red lable etc. However, what people normally call it is simply Coke because of the substance that exists within the bottle. Now, naturally, if we pour water instead of soda into the bottle, it can be no longer called Coke and yet the accidents of the bottle remain (Naturally, I could has used ‘liquid’ in the analogy, but I think the bottle is easier to visualize).
In this manner, imagine the soda as the prime matter in place of the soul, when the soda is replaced with water, the object loses its nature as “Coke.” In affect, there is no human substance without the soul.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I understand your point and agree with how we came up with explanations that make sense to a normal (unscientific) person who views life simply. In fact, I am more inclined to process the world by my 5 senses rather than delving into the world of subatomic physics. But in that world (if they are right) thrusts me back into CREATION and GOD who reveals His name to Moses as I AM. That is really all that I can say truly makes sense. All that EXISTS . . . came from nothing and is made from the THOUGHT OR WORD OF GOD. All existence has its BEING in GOD. I feel like philosophy has met science and we have gone full circle and that the rest of the speculation in between is rather obscure. Everything from the emotions, the values, the physical and spiritual are aspects of GOD or expressions of HIS BEING. Other than what I see and feel I can give my mind and soul over to this ONE BEING; the ONE AND ONLY GOD OF ALL CREATION. Otherwise everything is simply a combination of different energy bundles put together in a magnificent array of combinations that almost seem unimaginable and infinite. So this is why I quit studying philosophy as I felt it no longer served GOD but served the author of the particular philosophical thoughts that he was putting forward. Though interesting, they do not bring me closer to GOD just as science cannot, viewed the way most scientists view it, do that either. But when I see it as I AM and that I am made in the image of the ONE I AM it makes GOD alive and all Creation alive with HIS SPIRIT and LOVE and BEAUTY and all the other aspects you want to fill the blanks with.
LikeLiked by 2 people
” So this is why I quit studying philosophy as I felt it no longer served GOD but served the author of the particular philosophical thoughts that he was putting forward. ”
You have a point here. I am currently in a class where I ask questions against the grain in support of Divine Intellect via Augustine and Bonaventure because it redirects the orientation toward God. I personally think Bonaventure has it more correct but sadly enough our grades are determined by agreeing with Aquinas not whether he’s right or not–it’s presumed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I understand that completely. Philosophy is a tremendous discipline but in the end it all comes down to the DIVINE.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The biggest “aha!” moment is when I found that Thomists disagree on whether “beauty” is a transcendental.”
It Kind of throws a wrench into the whole no innate concepts premise.
LikeLike
For me, the root concept is “STANDARD”, which cannot be derived from experience, because experience is compared to it. STANDARD must be imposed by us on experience. Kant has various examples of relational concepts that we must presuppose in order to make sense of experience at all. Time is something in which experience happens, but it is not derived from experience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Time is something in which experience happens, but it is not derived from experience.“
Interesting, Augustine has a treatise on Time in the confessions. I think it derserves a reexamination.
My point with beauty is that you come to know beauty through the material but it’s existence is not predicated on the material therefore the concept doesn’t originate in the material.
It’s easy to illustrate that not all people agree on what is the beautiful but they do understand the concept.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed – beauty can apply to the spiritual and to ideas. Beauty, I think, might actually be a complex concept, involving TRUTH as one of the components. BEAUTY seems to mean something like, “In accordance with appropriate Stand X for Y class of objects.” An interesting discussion on beauty is Socrates’ comment about whether an eye is more beautiful because it is better at seeing – its purpose – or because it is better for being looked at – which may or may not be a purpose, depending on your analysis. (Arguably it is a purpose in the context of social relations, but, again, the ability of the eye to convey expressions might be more important than the purpose of the eye in attracting a member of the opposite sex.)
A further problem is what material actually means/is and how what we call spiritual beings fit into the world of physics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey good brother Nicholas, want to hear something funny as hell? The foxes met together to decide how to guard the henhouse. HHHAAAAAAAAAAHahahahahahahahahah.
LikeLike
Nicholas,
I think the material can help aid analogically. Naturally, this is a bit simplified, but for instance, if one has a healthy body and then their body becomes ill… they still possess the same body.
In the same relation with the soul in regard to habit and vice, your personality and disposition may change over time, but I would certainly point toward Christian theology of Grace, Predestination, Original Sin, redemption, Salvation etc, explanations that the soul remains the same form. Of course, Theology is the first science of knowledge, but non-believers won’t believe so, but I do believe there are philosophical examples and practical examples to indicate all of the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I might add this from J.R,R. Tolkien from letter 181 in regard to Gollum responsible for his actions in lieu of the power of the Ring, which in many ways I believe to be analogous to sin and its toil on the soul:
“Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him… I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their changes of nobility or salvation, and appear to be ‘damnable’… But we who are all ‘in the same boat’ must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. Need it ever have crossed his path? Need anything dangerous ever cross any of our paths?”
LikeLiked by 1 person