John Locke on Personal Identity
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 січ 2015
- What makes us human? For John Locke it is our memories that connect together the different parts of our lives rather than bodily continuity. Gillian Anderson explains.
Narrated by Gillian Anderson. Scripted by Nigel Warburton.
From the BBC Radio 4 series about life's big questions - A History of Ideas. www.bbc.co.uk/histor...
This project is from the BBC in partnership with The Open University, the animations were created by Cognitive.
This is what Light did to execute his plan and to kill Kira.
Whoa really good connection there
In the day of judgement you only allowed to bring your hard disk storage. no need for the pc unit itself.
PREACH
they prob have some godly pcs up there for ya
This reminds me of the Black Mirror episode 'White Bear.'
A woman is punished for kidnapping and killing a child with her partner. Her punishment involved living in a dystopian fantasy where there are people hunting her down, and everyone around them does nothing else except record on their phones.
At the end of everyday, she is reminded of her crime's and how this is her punishment, only for her memory to be completely wiped and having to relive the same day over and over.
Overall I sympathized with the woman at the centre of this because, like Locke theorized, how can you be considered a criminal when you have no memory of the crime you are accused.
As time went by, if she still kept losing memory but was free, would she repeat the crime, due to her nature? So the memory of consequence is important to reshape behavior and avoid new errors too
this is so consise and easy to uunderstand thank you
Astoundingly, thoughts like this have shaped legal systems until this day.
If you have amnesia, mental health issues etc. this is exactly the kind of argument that let's you get a reduced sentence, or hospitalisation instead of imprisonment.
thank god for philosophers, right?
Philosophers today actually argue against this, while scientists support this idea, somewhat.
You sound sarcastic. But you should think whether alternatives in these special cases are fair (aren't they?) and whether the problem relies on people exploring gaps on legal systems (doesn't it?)
@@tomlondon8602 depends on the philosopher. I think at the end of the day it would need to be judged on a case by case basis. Someone that is likely to commit a crime again even with no memory wod be treated differently from someone who isn't likely
what is wrong with that?
Yes. I agree this to be true
If a person didn't remember their crime, they may still need to be charged for it - as they need to be prevented from committing the crime again. If it was a serial killing for example. If it was a one off then I would agree they could get off lightly or completely once they aren't deemed a threat.
That implies it's somehow ingrained in their biology to kill which is..debateable
Cool.
The body can be reconstruced no matter what
this reminds me of a great little anime called Kaiba
the only Kaiba i think off, is Seto kaiba....
His logic is sound. In case of crime and punish scenario we must first identify what purpose is locking up a person for a crime serve. If its to rehabilitate, then must let the person who's forgotten the crime go because what logical purpose does punishing someone who doesn't know what he/she did serve? If the purpose is to give the victims assurance or pay back society for the crime, then crime is relative and become fluid or dynamic concept, changing to fit every person differently and culture differently. You'll start getting injustice where there is none, and justice when there is none.
The purpose would be to prevent the criminal from committing the same crime.
@@jworld463 most people that commit crimes do so because of the circumstances they are put in, not because they are 'bad people'
an eye for an eye
Since a person's memory is not the only thing involved in the perpetration of a crime it should not be the only thing held responsible for that crime.
that is missing the whole point of the argument.
This philosophy is there in bhagwathgita since 2 millenia BC....but most of indians learning this after access to gita books recently
some people I've met have the ability to forget things about themselves, or things they've done, that they don't like - a sort of selective memory suppression -- to some that would be simply arrogance or self-serving-ness -- so if they could commit a crime and forget it by effort of will, would they still be innocent, by Locke's reasoning? Like committing crimes while drunk, and blaming the alcohol (and see Twinkie Defense) -- seems pretty bogus to me, Dante would send such people to the Inferno
They would still be innocent
Did philosophers not understand decomposition?
this is
was*
This might make some decide to do bad things and try to wipe their memory of it after. Not that they should
that's why I have always rejected the idea of reincarnation, it is pointless, it would be no different than just eternal voidness
I'm confused why is reincarnation pointless?
@@davidpadilla1212 If memory is a precondition of personal identity and you get completely rid of memory then you can't identifiy two different lives as being of the same being, because you don't have the condition of identity. Reincarnation is more incoherent than pointless, so I'd word that differently
So, heaven or hell, there must be enormous amount of shit there.
And that’s why John Locke is a beast .
Karl Marx still good though.
I will say, Christians believe in the resurrection of Christs physical body so our soul could go and stay with him in heaven for eternity. If your gobbled up by another human, that's not gonna rule you out from heaven XD cuz your body disengages in the ground anyways haha