Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorBeck, Simon
dc.contributor.authorJohnstone, Candice
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-22T10:18:02Z
dc.date.available2024-07-22T10:18:02Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11394/10818
dc.descriptionMasters of Arten_US
dc.description.abstractWith a universally agreed upon perspective towards personal identity yet to be discovered, philosophers continue investigating the metaphysical question of what it means for a person to be one and the same person over time. Current views include those offered by those in the Lockean tradition, who claim that who we are lies within memories (Locke, 1975), while Parfit (1984) furthers this view to require psychological continuity, or what he calls Relation R. In contrast, contributors such as Williams (1970) and Olson (1997a) postulate that bodily continuity is responsible for the sameness of self. Schechtman (1996) puts forward a more contemporary perspective emphasising a narrative view, particularly as a component of her combination theory. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the work of each of the above-mentioned theorists and expose the damaging charges their respective views of personal identity are confronted with. In the hopes of addressing the theoretical gaps we are therefore left with, I will propose my own view of where our personal identity lies, borrowing essential concepts from Locke’s use of consciousness and Schechtman’s narrative view and self-concept, highlighting that a person is required to be aware of their existence within the world.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of the Western Capeen_US
dc.subjectPersonal identityen_US
dc.subjectpersonhooden_US
dc.subjectmemoryen_US
dc.subjectbodily continuityen_US
dc.subjectcriterionen_US
dc.titlePersonal identity, consciousness and a self-concepten_US
dc.rights.holderUniversity of the Western Capeen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record