I need help understanding the following passage:
“Could we suppose two distinct
incommunicable consciousnesses acting in the same body, the one constantly by day, the other by night; and, on
the other side, the same consciousness, acting by intervals, in two distinct bodies?” (399) If we go by Locke’s
definition, it is clear that in the first case the day and night man would indeed be two distinct persons, as different
from one another as Socrates and Plato. And in the second case, there would be one person in two bodies just
as it would be the same person wearing two different sets of clothing. Locke notes that this being the same
distinct consciousness is in no way dependent on it residing in the same immaterial substance, as personal identity
would be determined by consciousness whether or not it were annexed to such a substance. “For, granting that
the thinking substance in man must be necessarily supposed immaterial, it is evident that [that] immaterial thinking
thing may sometimes part with its past consciousness and be restored to it again….Make these intervals of
memory and forgetfulness to take their turns regularly by day and night and you have two persons with the same
immaterial spirit, as much as in the former instance of two persons with the same body” (399). Anything a
substance has thought or done that a person cannot recollect through consciousness does not belong to that
person any more than the thoughts or actions of another person altogether.
The passage you provided is from John Locke's essay "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." In this passage, Locke explores the concept of personal identity and consciousness. To understand the passage, let's break it down into key points and provide explanations:
1. Locke presents a hypothetical scenario where there are two distinct consciousnesses (thoughts, awareness, self-identity) in one body, one active during the day and the other during the night. He also describes another scenario where the same consciousness alternates between two different bodies.
2. According to Locke's definition, in the first scenario, the day and night consciousness would be considered two distinct persons, similar to how Socrates and Plato are different individuals. This implies that personal identity is determined by consciousness.
3. In the second scenario, there would be one person occupying two bodies, much like a person wearing different sets of clothing. This suggests that personal identity is not solely dependent on the physical body but also on consciousness.
4. Locke clarifies that personal identity, as determined by consciousness, does not necessarily rely on an immaterial substance. Even if we assume that the thinking substance in humans is immaterial, the continuity of consciousness is what determines personal identity, regardless of whether it is associated with a material or immaterial substance.
5. Locke proposes that the immaterial thinking thing (consciousness) may occasionally lose memories (intervals of forgetfulness) and regain them (intervals of memory). If these intervals alternate regularly between day and night, two persons with the same immaterial spirit would exist, just like in the first scenario with two persons sharing one body.
6. Locke emphasizes that any thoughts or actions that a person cannot recollect through consciousness do not belong to that person. It is only through conscious awareness and memory that personal identity is established.
In summary, Locke's passage explores the relationship between consciousness and personal identity. He argues that personal identity is determined by consciousness and can exist independently of the physical body. Awareness through consciousness is crucial for forming and maintaining personal identity.