The views on personal identity among different philosophers have always differed. Locke and Descartes are two philosophers whose views on this issue are especially interesting to compare. Locke believed in the presence of the physical body and its relevance for the personal identity, whereas Descartes kept to an idea that those are human mind and thoughts rather than physical body that constitute personal identity.
Discussing Locke’s attitude towards the issue of personal identity, it is worth mentioning that his understanding of it is memory-based. Locke admits that any person needs a body for existence and this body undergoes a number of changes throughout its life: “For example, within a normal human life, there will be enormous changes from birth to death, changes in the body and the cells which make up the body …, changes in personality and changes in memory” (Falzon 68). Yet, somehow, the person manages to preserve the same personality in the course of his/her life. This, as stated by Locke, takes place because a person has memories and, as long as this person remembers his/her past life, he retains his/her personality. Such understanding of personal identity means “not only that the same person can persist despite radical body changes, but also that a form of reincarnation is at least theoretically possible” (Falzon 73). Locke mentions that personal identity is lost when the memories are lost; however, if a person is conscious of somebody else’s past actions and has memories about them, then he/she has the personal identity of this somebody else.
This idea is best of all reflected in the movies about reincarnation. One of such movies is Birth (2004) in which the main heroine, Anna, finally manages to start a new life after the death of her husband when a ten-year-old boy appears in her life claiming that he is the reincarnation of her husband; the boy has full knowledge of Anna’s life and her late husband. This supports Locke’s assertion that personal identity is memory-based for, if someone has the memories of another person, he/she can be considered to have the personal identity of this person. Therefore, Locke’s view on personal identity presupposes the presence of a physical body that is able to keep the memories as long as this body can exist; at this, the memories not always get lost if they find another body to settle in.
In contrast, Descartes expresses an idea that it is not the body, but the thoughts that identify the presence of the personal identity. Descartes’ understanding of personal identity is immaterial and it consists of the human mind. He posits that “it [mind] is not bodily or physical in nature, even though it might inhabit the body in some sense; and it could conceivably exist in complete separation from the body, in a disembodied state” (Falzon 60). Descartes, however, does not fully reject the existence of the physical body. Instead, he is a proponent of an idea that human beings have dualistic nature. Human mind, according to Descartes, is non-material, and it does not have anything to do with the human brain. This makes every person a ‘thinking thing,’ though the thinking process takes place by itself without the brain being involved into it. Descartes does not deny the existence of the physical world in any way; nor does he reject the idea that he has a physical body. Since Descartes identifies himself as a ‘thinking thing,’ he states that a person is essentially a mind, not a body; thus, a person is attached to a definite physical body and, once it is separated from it, it can attach to another one.
Just like in case with Locke’s ideas, Descartes’ ones have also found reflection in movies. However, the movies representing Descartes’ view on personal identity are about two bodies switching their souls, rather than about reincarnation. An example of such a movie is Holiday Wishes (2006) where a girl, Britney, who was treated badly by her siblings, wished for Christmas to have a nice family and non-intentionally switched her bodies with her friend, Rachel, who was not satisfied with her family either. The next morning the girls wake up in the bodies of each other. This serves as an example of Descartes’ assertion that the mind is non-material and, once transferred into another body, does not depend on the brain within this body (for, biologically, the brain remains the same). Thus, Descartes’ view on personal identity is all about the non-materiality of the mind that exists and functions separately from the physical body.
In sum, both the philosophers agree that the presence of a physical body is necessary for a person and both agree that it can transfer from one body into the other. At this, however, their understanding of personal identity differs. Locke’s understanding of it is memory-based, while Descartes’ one is immaterial for he believes the personal identity to exist separately from the human’s physical body in a form of a mind.
Plato’s Theory of Forms allows understanding the true nature of things. Plato, as an outstanding philosopher, has always seen meaning behind the physical form of the objects. This is the information he shares in his Theory of Forms. The Theory of Forms changes the perception of the objects people encounter every day and affects not only people’s perception of the physical world, but their morality as well; however, this theory can hardly give a satisfying account of reality because it is built on intuitive evidence.
First of all, Plato’s ‘forms’ reflect the real essence of objects that surround people. ‘Forms’ are not something physical; on the contrary, they are the ideas reflecting the meaning behind every physical object. What people encounter every day are not the real objects; they are simply the copies of the perfect ‘forms’: “For example, the various different chairs we encounter in our ordinary experience are all imperfect copies of an ideal, timeless, unchanging chair, the Platonic form of the chair existing beyond our experience” (Falzon 34). The ‘form’, according to Plato, is a universal notion that could easily solve the problem of universals (whether anything universal exists in general); Plato posited that the ‘form’ was something singular, but it could be represented in a number of objects. A ‘form’ is not an object; it is something that unites a series of objects of one and the same kind. For instance, a table as an object has a number of variations, but they all are united by the same essence, tableness, that dictates the shape of the tables and their function; here, table as an object is a matter, while tableness is a ‘form’. If these two notions are separated from each other, the ‘form’ becomes the purest of all the things. This is how, according to Plato, the ‘forms’ are related to the physical objects in the real world.
However, it is not only the physical world that falls under the influence of Plato’s Theory of Forms, but the abstract one as well. If a person has to comprehend the true nature of the physical objects through the existence of ‘forms,’ then why does this person not need to apply this concept to the sense experience? By this Plato presupposed moral ideals of people, as well as virtues and such notions as courage, wisdom, and the good in general. The good is what Plato focuses on most of all. He states that there is a universal ‘form’ of the good that people, just like in case with the universal ‘form’ of the physical objects, do not know about. It is only through discovering this universal ‘form’ that a person can have a good life and looking for this ‘form’ is what Plato considers a rational task: “Although Plato’s moral theory seems to be based on a notion of self-fulfillment or self-realization, … we can only fulfill ourselves through knowledge of these timeless forms, and above all, through knowledge of the good” (Falzon 90). Only through looking for these ‘forms’ can a person achieve morality. Thus, Plato sees the basis of morality not in the human nature, but in the world of the ‘forms’ that is pure and flawless.
Finally, it cannot be definitely stated that Plato’s Theory of Forms gives a full account of reality, at least the reality we live in. Plato focuses on explaining the world of ‘forms,’ rather than the world the biggest part of which does not even know about the world of ‘forms.’ Besides, it cannot be proven that the ‘forms’ Plato is talking about really exist. The evidence of their existence is intuitive only, which means that Plato’s view on them is not objective. What may seem a ‘form’ to Plato, may not be a ‘form’ for another person, which affects the latter’s perception of the world. For instance, ‘blueness’ is regarded as a ‘form’ by Plato. This means that the matter of this ‘form’ is anything that has a blue color. The blue sky and the blue water, however, are of different blue color, which means that the reality is distorted. This means that there exist limitations to Plato’s theory of Forms; consequently, it cannot give a satisfying account of reality. In this way, though the Theory of Forms was acceptable for Plato, it turns out to be confusing and not objective.
In conclusion, Plato’s theory of Forms posits that there is a universal meaning by which physical objects and abstract notions are united. This meaning, according to Plato, helps to comprehend the true nature of these objects and notions. Nevertheless, Plato’s theory is not a satisfying account of reality for it views the reality from a biased perspective.