Locke uses the thought experiment of the ‘severed finger’ to prove how the consciousness is separate from the physical body. When the finger is part of the physical whole, it is connected to the consciousness because the consciousness of aware of it. Thus if we were to prick our finger we would feel pain because we are conscious of the finger, if the finger becomes separated completely and we feel nothing of it, it no longer becomes part of our conscious self. Thus the conscious self and the physical self are not the same thing. The thing that connects one entity in the past with one entity in the future is a connected consciousness, and this connected consciousness comes through memory. Thus is the severed finger retains the conscious thoughts and memory of the ‘whole body’ person then the finger becomes the person even thought the majority of physical body is elsewhere.
By talking about an identity of consciousness Locke is suggesting that it is consciousness itself which defines someones identity and consciousness alone! This consciousness is linked to memory, not bodily substances, or souls etc. Thus if you have someone else’s soul inside you, yet you are not aware of him, then you are not in fact the same person because you have none of his memories. Locke uses the Major of Quinborough and Socrates to emphasis this point. If however Socrates soul was in the Major of Quinborough’s and the memories were merged this would make the same person.
Locke is talking about morals and forensics in his essay, he is not talking 'fluffy' metaphysics, he is precisely interested in what someone can be morally accountable for or not. He is suggesting you are responsible for what you are conscious of doing, because your consciousness is you. Therefore if you truly forget something you are not responsible for it.
Locke predicates his potential detractors. Their objection that someone who committed their crime could well easily forget yet still be responsible is overturned because the physical man is not the same as the consciousness. While the man in the same, the consciousness has changed. Thus the present consciousness should not be blamed for the past if the past is not remembered even though it occurred in the same physical man. In fact we can see this in common language ‘He wasn’t himself today’ etc. Getting punished for something you have truly forgot is similar to a sane man being convicted of his crimes when he was mad (now-a-days this would be over-turned on account of the sane man have diminished responsibility when he was mad.
However, Locke suggests that human courts are right to convict someone who claims to not remember a past sin because there is no way of knowing that the person is lying or not. And anyway in the day of judgement the convicted man who truly didn’t remember would be acquitted before the eyes of his lord.
P47.
In the Audio, Paul Snowden decribes the context in which Locke was writing. The 17th Century was one of massive change. There was religious turmoil as the fallout of the reformation was leading to political disruption across Europe. Eg the English Civil War. Also people were becoming more analytical- the 17th century saw the beginning of science as we know it. Locke was particular interested in the 'self' in terms of what this would mean at the Resurrection and the afterlife...
It is important to define the terms Locke uses. The main point of his essay is that there is a fundamental difference between the person and the man. He also uses the term substance. In this he means 'stuff' which is split into 3 categories, material stuff you can feel and touch, immaterial stuff such as the soul and the consciousness, and divine stuff which is what god is made of.
Snowden argues that is only the immaterial consciousness which defines the person, not the soul of the man body. This leads to a very interesting conundrum. If a soul can occupy two separate men, but because these men do not consciously know of each other and as therefore two separate 'persons' just who will be judged at the resurrection. Will a soul be judged multiple times because it has occupied many discrete persons?
Locke is interested in forensics. This is different from what we would think the modern terms mean (such as the TV show CSI). He means by forensics actions you are responsible for and can be judged for. This is linked to this theory that a person is a conscious thinking thing connected to his past self only by memory. This complex consciousness is what separates man from unthinking beast.
Snowden also explains how Thomas Reids theory undermines Locke. If your consciousness is only linked to memory does this mean that you are different person to the one your were when a boy. (see above). Memory is not transitive Reid suggest. However Locke champions suggest that memory could be 'overlapping' rather than being fully transitive. So long as you at some point in your life you remembered the younger boy person, then that person in still you even though you do not remember you as a boy.
The idea of a transitive memory ia one of the contraditions of Lockes text. Because he is looking to the future at the resurrection he is assuming that we will remember the now. This defeats his modern champions somewhat (somehow?)
