Table of ContentsThe Acquisition of “Experience”The Relevance of Empiricism to Morality and ReasoningHow Experience Shapes IdentityLocke & Hume on identityLocke's Perspective on IdentityHume's Perspective and Criticism of Locke's PositionConclusionJohn Locke and David Hume have been considered to be two of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of their time. During the Age of Enlightenment, these two men spent much of their time delving into the concepts that make the human mind so abstract. Both men were very aware of the consciousness of man and the subjectivity that accompanies their ideas. Ideas, opinions, notions: so many terms that resonate with subjectivity. Self-described empiricists in their own right, both men fully recognized that any notion of anything that man could possibly know – or even understand – was based solely on experience. The experience itself can be defined subjectively; one may experience an event firsthand, witness what happens to someone else, hear about another person's direct experience (from that person's point of view), or hear about it from someone else. 'another. However one may acquire this hypothetical experience, it is through personal perception, repetition, and one's ability to understand the complexity of the circumstances of one's situation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay while ethics, morals and the nature of all things that can be considered opposites - "good" and "evil", "hot" and "cold", "yes" or "no" - are all determined based on our individual understanding of these concepts, they are all created based on how and to what extent we perceive them. Knowledge of anything is not ingrained in our minds from birth; you have to get it. To gain this knowledge, Hume and Locke agree that one must experience life. By doing this, we allow ourselves to perceive the world around us, providing us with opportunities to develop our current sense of reasoning. “We see how they gradually come to have more ideas, which they only do by acquiring ideas which are provided to them by experience and observation of things. This might be enough to convince us that they — ideas — are not characters imprinted in the mind from birth. (Locke, J, Book I, 1690, p.14) Through our own experiences, most of us become more developed human beings. In turn, our perception of the world around us changes as we grow and experience situations more frequently. Through the acquisition of clearer knowledge and reasoning, one gains a sense of identity and self-awareness. It is on this concept that the two philosophers have contradictory perspectives. The idea of ​​personal identity is undoubtedly subjective. However, Hume proclaims that such a concept is so changeable and variable that the term is virtually obsolete. (Hume, D., 1739, p. 14) Locke also agrees that a person's identity is almost inevitably subject to change as a person ages, but that identity in itself surely exists. (Locke, J., 1690, Book II, p. 113) Similar in nature, the ideologies of Locke & Hume each offer a unique view of how people obtain their levels of thinking and how they correlate them to their personal identity . If identity and rationality are two distinct concepts, the former is the result of the latter. The question of knowingWhether or not "identity" as a concept has any significant meaning is debatable according to these men's works, but they both agree that there is a certain degree of subjectivity in this concept. Additionally, these philosophers have very empirical philosophical views and therefore agree that everything we perceive – in the world, outside ourselves, and within ourselves – is subject to change as well as perception different. In order for us to experience substantial emotions or thoughts about life or ourselves, I agree with Locke & Hume that our reasoning and ability to identify ourselves can only come with time and knowledge. 'experience. The Acquisition of “Experience” How a person can achieve any type of experience is debatable. For example, although a person may experience the gloomy feelings experienced after the recent loss of a loved one, anyone to whom they could explain this experience cannot help but sympathize with them. Even then, the amount of genuine empathy the second person expresses may not be genuine at all, but rather an expression of the social cues they have managed to pick up about the emotion. As for the person hearing the sad story of the other person's loss, their experience is not a real experience at all. For me to say this is based on my own understanding of the term “experience”; in a sense, just hearing the grieving person's story can justify calling them that. Even if this other person actually feels a real feeling of sadness towards the other person, this is only based on what he or she has just heard. Even if this person had lost a loved one at some point in their life, their perception will not be entirely the same as someone else's, assuming they were in a similar situation to begin with. In both cases, the reasoning behind how one should react when hearing someone else's sad news is obtained through similar past experiences, as well as understanding the appropriate social cues for expressing oneself. in such a situation. Even though we may not have the slightest idea of ​​what we actually think or why we should think a certain way, our perception of past experiences is what allows us to develop a sense of moral standards and reasoning. Even if we don't fully understand the reasoning behind how we're supposed to feel, our past experiences at least teach most of us what the most acceptable social norms might be for our times. The Relevance of Empiricism to Morality and Reasoning The empirical ideologies of Hume and Locke both agree that logic and morality are what people choose to make of them. What people choose to do with these abstract concepts is based solely on how they perceive the world around them, whether according to their own narratives or those of others. George Berkeley, another well-known philosopher of the same era, once said: "It is obvious to anyone who examines the objects of human knowledge that they are either ideas actually impressed on the senses, or ideas perceived by the senses. to deal with the passions and operations of the mind, or finally with the ideas formed with the help of memory and imagination, either by composing, by dividing, or by barely representing those perceived at the origin of the aforementioned manner. (Berkeley, G., 1901, p. 41) This essentially means that anyone who takes the time to evaluate all elements of human knowledge will discover that everything is relative to those who established it in the first place. Ofmoreover, the establishment of such knowledge had to come from a place of passion, even repetition. The repetitive experiences we have are what lead to more developed reasoning, at least regarding the circumstances of those experiences. Memories of past experiences are what allow us to progress, or at least what we might define as “progress.” This allows us to develop our sense of reason behind establishing our moral standards, as well as confront situations that may share some type of relevance to our past experiences. Regarding moral standards, Hume argues that they are what we perceive. let them be. The standards we set are not based on rationality, but on passion and emotion. Hume asserts that our preconceived notions of logic and rationality are derived from our passions, which are themselves derived from our personal experiences. “Reason is and must only be the slave of the passions, and can never claim any other office than that of serving and obeying them. As this opinion may appear somewhat extraordinary, it is perhaps not inappropriate to confirm it by other considerations. (Hume, D, 1739, p.217) He states that our reasoning is the result of passions. Since our individual passions, outlooks on situations, and experiences are all uniquely different from those of the next individual, reasoning itself can be considered subjective to the point of being arbitrary. Reasoning and ideas, although they can be used synonymously, are two concepts independent of each other. However, this does not mean that reasoning itself occurs arbitrarily; it must first be preceded by ideas. These ideas arise from experiencing new concepts, especially during childhood. While this may be a vague explanation of how/if we develop a sense of reason, the number of potential experiences one could have throughout one's life is countless. What we experience happens in any way we choose, because passion for our perceptions is how we develop our sense of reason. That said, we have a choice in how we can perceive and react to certain situations. Locke says that it is only when we are well into adulthood that we begin to apply these ideas to our own self-awareness. (Locke, J, 1690, Book II, p.19) Even so, some of us may be unable to piece together the experiences and scraps of information acquired over the years. While reasoning and simply having ideas have two distinct meanings, Locke argues that to have ideas is simply to perceive. (ibid., p. 20) Our ability to perceive begins before we are even aware of it. From the moment we are born, all our senses are intact, however poorly developed they may be. As such, it can be said that we begin to develop ideas before we can make sense of them. For some of us, this continues into adulthood, simply with a more developed sense of perception. Perception is also a matter of subjectivity and can never be considered “right” or “wrong”. Even though we believe we hold all the keys to knowing life's unanswerable dilemmas, we cannot even begin to comprehend the infinite number of perspectives that exist, even when those perspectives relate to the most insignificant matters. Additionally, perception comes with experience, and repetitive experience can cause our perception to change over time. (ibid, p. 22) Therefore, whatever our current perception of the world whichsurrounds us and our own identity, such perception is a unique perspective that really only suits our own ideals and understandings. How Experience Shapes Identity Our knowledge and perception of the world around us is what allows us to form our own identity. As we age, how we choose to think and respond to everyday situations is what will ultimately define who we are as people. This corresponds to my personal belief, which coincides with Locke's point of view. (ibid, p. 115) As we gain more experience in life, we also give others the opportunity to form their own opinions about us. It is very rare for a person to be unanimously liked or disliked by everyone they meet. As such, the opinions of multiple people also shape our identity in some way. (Hume, D., 1739, p. 41) Whether or not we choose to let this determine whether we identify in the same way is entirely up to us. According to Hume (ibid, p. 41), what we perceive about ourselves is irrelevant to what our identity can actually be defined as. Since it is something that is constantly changing in ourselves and the people around us, there are too many different perceptions of what a person's identity is for it to have any meaning. importance. This does not mean that the concept is stagnant and therefore does not change or evolve. This simply means that due to the multiple perceptions of ourselves that we will have throughout our lives, as well as the perceptions of others, the idea is too complex to be referred to ourselves at any one time. Locke & Hume on Identity “…If I know what I think, then I must be a self, but to know that I am a self, I must know what I think.” (Balibar, E., 2014, p. 46) This statement recognizes that we, as people, can be considered as such (“selves”) due to our consciousness. Because we think, we exist. However, for there to be any substance in our existence, we must have the previously mentioned sense of reasoning and knowledge that we have acquired over the course of life. Since our perceptions are altered in different ways depending on circumstances, no one person will have exactly the same sense of identity as another, even though two individuals may appear similar. Their resemblance is also a matter of subjective perception. Due to the subjective nature of personal identity, Hume is skeptical of its uniqueness. Because identity cannot be defined as a single thing, there are too many possible perceptions about an individual's identity for it to have any singular concrete meaning. Naturally, its meaning would only apply to specific individuals, hence the definition of identity. Even then, its meaning would vary greatly among the countless people who have encountered such a person. No one knows the whole story of why a person is the way they are, and the qualities that define a person will almost certainly change over time. Additionally, that person's perceptions of others may also change, while others may not. It is according to this logic that Hume makes his assertion regarding the concept of identity. Locke had a similar notion regarding the idea of ​​self-identity. However, he considers that it is more a question of perception. As someone who worked for the British Parliament and legal system of his day, one might correctly assume that Locke thought more in practical terms. To determine the true definition ofidentity, Locke first learned that he had to differentiate between everything that is living and everything that is inanimate. (Uzgalis, W., 2001) He knew that all atoms have a distinct identity and it never changes. In this respect, the identity of an atom or other stagnant and constant object simply comes from itself; it has no notable substance or characteristics that give it an identity beyond what it is in its form alone. Animals, on the other hand, can all be identified by what they are and the functions they perform. A cow goes “moo,” produces milk that we drink, and generally has physical characteristics similar to most cows. By simply looking at this creature, most people would agree that such an animal is actually a cow. Even though they are one species among countless types of animals that do not have the ability to think critically or feel emotions like us, that does not mean that all other animals are cows. All animals, including humans, have distinct characteristics that define their identity. To some extent, one could even argue that they possess a certain degree of personality. It is this aspect in which human identity is most clearly identified. According to Locke's work, the identity of something becomes as complex as the being identified allows itself to become. Locke's Perspective on Identity When it comes to the identity of people, it cannot be defined by their materialistic or physical substance. The characteristics that define a person as they are are what give them their identity. Since such perception is based on ideas that are the product of years of experience, it suffices to say that a person's identity is subject to change. While this may be true for most individuals, there are certain characteristics that remain with them from conception. Although a person's methods of reasoning, acting, and perceiving the world may change as they gain more knowledge and experience, certain defining characteristics will always be part of the foundation of a person's identity. person. If a person were to have several personalities of completely different people throughout their lives, they would exhibit notably different traits, thus indicating that they are either inhuman or have a serious personality disorder. Also a very spiritual man, Locke believed that there is a very clear distinction between souls and people. . He believed that our souls are what allow us to think and are the embodiment of our consciousness, thereby significantly shaping our identity as individuals. So that we can perceive any emotion - pain, sadness, joy, etc. - it requires a consciousness that only the soul is capable of using for its own purpose. (Locke, J., 1690, Book II, p. 20) He also believed that despite man's tendency to sometimes act unconsciously, there is more than his own perception of his identity and his conscious actions which should determine who it really is. He also believes that for a man to truly possess an identity, he must recognize certain levels of responsibility. He uses a drunk man as an example to make his point. (ibid, p. 119) Even if it is the same person, the drunk man's level of consciousness is more intact when he is sober. Although he may have committed offensive acts while in an unconscious state, he made the decision to put himself in such a state. As such, the actions he committed while drunk must be held against him as a person. Locke believed that a person's identity consisted of.