Module 1. THE WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL
PERSPECTIVE OF SELF
Lesson I: ANCIENT GREEK VIEWS ON THE SELF
ANCIENT GREEK VIEWS ON THE SELF
PLATO
• “The soul of man is immortal and imperishable.”
• The self in ancient Greek philosophy is a complex and fascinating topic that has been explored by
many thinkers. The ancient Greeks had different views on the nature, origin, and function of the self, as
well as its relation to the body, the soul, and the cosmos. Some of the main questions that they
addressed were
1. What is the essence of the self?
2. Is it rational, emotional, or both?
3. Is it immortal or mortal?
4. Is it individual or universal?
5. How does it know itself and the world?
6. How does it act and interact with others?
7. How does it achieve happiness and virtue?
● The Presocratics did not have a single concept of the self, but rather different perspectives that
reflected their wider metaphysical views. For instance, Heraclitus saw the self as a part of the dynamic
and ever-changing process, while Parmenides saw the self as an aspect of a static and eternal being.
Pythagoras and his followers, meanwhile, believed in the reincarnation of souls, which implies that the
self is not bound to a specific body or identity.
● Plato, an idealist ancient Greek philosopher, introduced a more elaborate understanding of the self
which incorporated insights from the Presocratics. Plato's view of the self is reflected in his theory of
Forms, which holds that the material world is only a shadow or copy of the real world of eternal and
unchanging Forms. The self is not identified with the body or the material world but with the soul, which
is immortal and capable of knowing the Forms (Ryan, 2018).
● Plato's views on the soul are not consistent throughout his works. In the Phaedo, he argued that the
soul is rational and immortal, while the body is irrational and mortal. He rejected the idea that the soul is
a harmony of the body because they can conflict with each other. However, in other dialogues, such as
the Phaedrus, Republic, Timaeus, and Laws, he admitted that the soul has non-rational parts, such as
spirit (emotion) and appetite (physical desire). In any case (Mason, 2014), Plato assigned to the soul
the capacities that are generally considered mental, such as thinking, perceiving, feeling, desiring, and
so on.
● According to Plato, the self as a rational and immortal soul has access to the realm of the eternal and
perfect Forms that underlie reality. In the dialogue Meno, Plato introduced the idea that learning is a
process of "recollection" of what the soul already knew before birth. He demonstrated this idea with a
slave boy who can solve a geometry problem by answering Socrates' questions. Plato claimed that this
shows that the boy has a natural capacity to understand the forms that he inherited from a previous life.
● Among Plato’s arguments for the soul’s immortality, the ‘affinity argument’ stands out for its depth and
complexity. This argument draws a parallel between the soul which is non-physical and Plato's Forms -
timeless, unaltered, fundamental, and indivisible truths that underpin reality. By its resemblance to
these Forms, the soul inherits their characteristics: it is eternal, constant, uncompounded, and cannot
be split or destroyed. Thus, Plato concluded that the soul must be immortal. As outlined in Phaedo, the
soul is
○ (1) simple or incomposite,
○ (2) immaterial,
○ (3) unchanging,
○ (4) indivisible, and
, structure of matter that gives it its specific properties and characteristics (Cohen et al., 2016). He
believed that everything in the world has a form and that these forms are what make things what they
are. In addition, Aristotle believed that forms are not just abstract concepts, but rather they are
instantiated in the physical world. For example, the form of a chair is what makes it a chair, and this
form is instantiated in the physical matter that makes up the chair. Aristotle's view on form is closely
related to his concept of substance, which he believed was composed of both matter and form.
● In line with his idea of form and matter, Aristotle viewed the human soul as the form of the body. The
soul is not a material part of the body, but rather a set of capacities that a living thing has, such as the
capacity to metabolize, move about, have desires and fulfill them, perceive, and contemplate. Aristotle
believed that there are different levels of the soul, associated with different capacities or functions, such
as the nutritive soul, the appetitive soul, the locomotive soul, the perceptive soul, and the rational soul.
The rational soul is peculiar to humans and is responsible for the ability to reason and think abstractly
(Cohen et al., 2016).
● Aristotle disagreed with Plato's view of the self as a pure spirit distinct and separate from the body. He
believed that the soul and the body were not two separate things, but two aspects of one thing. But this
does not mean that they cannot be separated at all. Ross (2005) clarifies that the soul and the body are
like form and matter in general. The matter that makes up a living being was there before it became
alive and will be there after it dies. It can only exist in some form, but not necessarily in this form. And
the same form can exist without this matter. For Aristotle, the same form is shared by all members of a
species, and it can exist without any one of them but not without all of them. It needs a certain kind of
matter to exist, not any kind of matter. It needs a body with a specific chemical composition and shape,
and it cannot be in another kind of body (Ross, 2005).
● Aristotle's philosophy includes the concept of the individual as a distinct entity with its unique
characteristics and potentialities (Cohen et al., 2016). He believed that individuals have a specific
nature or essence that determines their capacities and potentialities. For example, a human being has
a rational soul that gives the capacity for reason and abstract thought, which is not shared by other
animals. Aristotle also believed that individuals have telos, or purpose, which is determined by their
nature and potentialities. The ultimate goal of human life, according to Aristotle, is to achieve
eudaimonia, or happiness, by fulfilling one's potentialities and living by one's nature.
● Both Plato and Aristotle were influential in shaping subsequent philosophical discussions on the self.
Their ideas laid the foundation for further explorations into topics such as personal identity,
consciousness, and the relationship between the self and the external world.
Lesson II: THE SELF IN MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY
The Self in Medieval Christianity
● ‘Medieval philosophy' is the term used to describe the philosophical thought that emerged in Western
Europe during the Middle Ages, a period that spanned from the fall of the Roman Empire to the dawn of
the Renaissance. In the medieval view, the concept of the self was greatly shaped by Christian
theology, influenced by thinkers such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.
St. Augustine’s Understanding of the Self
● St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) is a prominent figure in the history of Western philosophy, particularly
known for his extensive contributions to Christian theology. His philosophy of the self was deeply
influenced by his own experiences, his religious beliefs, and his engagement with various philosophical
traditions, including Neo-Platonism. Augustine's views on the self are complex and varied, but some
key themes can be identified. He agreed with some Greek philosophers that the self is composed of
both the body and soul and that the soul is the source of life and the unifier of the body. For Augustine,
the body is the physical form that houses the soul. It is through the body that the soul interacts with the
world and experiences sensory perceptions. He also posited that all living things have souls, even
plants and the world itself. However, he distinguished human souls from other souls by their rationality.
He argued that human souls are immaterial and simple substances that know their existence and can
think of God (Sauchelli, 2017).
● Augustine's conception of the self changed from a Platonic to a Christian one. He agreed with Plato
,St. Thomas Aquinas’ Understanding of the Self
● St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/25–74), another influential Christian thinker in the Middle Ages, built upon
Aristotle's and Augustine's ideas and developed a more rational understanding of the self. He drew on
both Western and Eastern sources to develop his theory of human psychology, based on Aristotle's De
Anima. In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas emphasized the rationality of human beings, their capacity
for knowledge, and their ability to choose between good and evil.
● One important aspect of St. Thomas Aquinas' views on the self is his understanding of the human
person as an integrated whole, consisting of both a material body and a rational and spiritual soul.
Following Aristotle, he believed that the soul is the form or principle of life for the body, giving it its
purpose and guiding its actions. Thus, he considered the soul as the most important part of the self, as
it is responsible for the characteristics that distinguish humans from other animals, such as rationality
and the ability to know and love God. (Kinghorn, 2018). Aquinas also distinguished between human
persons and animals, by claiming that human souls can exist apart from their bodies, while animal
souls cannot. This is because human souls have intellectual and volitional powers that do not depend
on the body, while animal powers do (Kinghorn, 2018).
● According to Aquinas, the human soul is an incorporeal and subsistent principle that is both the form of
a body and a power that operates independently of the body. The human soul's essential role is to
actualize a human body, but it has a power, its intellect, that cannot be carried out through the brain or
any other bodily instrument. Aquinas also argued that the human soul is incorruptible, meaning that it
has no natural basis for ceasing to exist once it is created by God. After death, the soul's incorruptibility
entails that it will continue to exist without the body (Pasnau,2023).
● While Aquinas believed in the soul's capacity to exist without the body, he contended that resurrection
of bodies is required because the life of the whole compound, soul, and body, is required for a person's
survival. This implies that for Aquinas a person's soul surviving apart from its body is not sufficient for
that person's survival.
● In general, Medieval thinkers’ exploration of the self or soul as immortal and spiritual laid the foundation
for the notion of a unified and lasting self in modern philosophy.
Lesson III: THE SELF IN ENLIGHTENMENT THOUGHT
THE SELF IN ENLIGHTENMENT THOUGHT
● Enlightenment philosophy represents a period of intellectual thought in the 17th and 18th centuries that
placed great emphasis on reason, skepticism towards traditional authority, and the pursuit of
knowledge. During this time, several prominent philosophers explored the nature of the self and its
relationship to the mind and body.
Descartes’ Understanding of the Self
● René Descartes (1596-1650), often considered one of the foundational figures of modern philosophy,
believed that the senses do not show us the true nature of things, but only some aspects of them. As a
rationalist thinker, he thought that the human mind can grasp the reality of things through pure
intellectual perception, without relying on the senses. To do this, we need to use our innate ideas of the
essences of mind, matter, and God. In his Meditations, Descartes tried to prove this by first doubting
everything that comes from the senses. Then he found one thing that he could not doubt: his existence
as a thinking being. He called this the cogito, and he used it as a criterion of truth: whatever he can
perceive clearly and distinctly by his intellect must be true.
● Based on his Meditations, Descartes claimed that human beings consist of two different substances: a
material body and an immaterial mind or soul. This dualism implies that the mind and body are
separate entities that interact with each other. This leads to a problem of explaining the self.
● One possible way to understand the Cartesian self is to identify it with the mind or soul. This way of
understanding seems to fit with how Descartes described the self in different contexts (Chamberlain,
2020). The main idea is that the self and the soul are the same thing: there is no difference between
them. As a result, the self has all the properties of the soul. In this life, the self is united with a human
body. The human being is the outcome of this union, which is composed of the self/soul and the human
, accepted in Descartes's time and was consistent with the Judeo-Christian view of humans as a unified
substance with both physical and nonphysical features. Descartes, however, questioned this view by
using the method of doubt and demonstrating that mind and body are distinct since he could doubt the
existence of his body but not his mind or soul.
Locke’s Understanding of the Self
● Descartes’ rationalism was opposed by the empiricist philosopher John Locke (1632–1704). Locke
maintained that all knowledge is derived from experience and sensory perception, not from innate ideas
or principles. He employed the concept of the "tabula rasa," or blank slate, to illustrate that humans are
born without any prior knowledge or personality traits, and that they acquire them through their
interactions with the world. Unlike Descartes’ claim, Locke maintained that personal identity is not a
fixed essence but a consequence of continuous consciousness and memory. He argued that the self is
determined by the sequence of thoughts and feelings that we are aware of and remember.
● According to Locke, personal identity does not depend on the identity of the soul, but on the identity of
consciousness. He declared that a person persists over time if he has the same consciousness, which
he explained as the capacity to reflect on one's past thoughts and actions. Locke's theory has had a
great impact on the history of philosophy, but it has also encountered many criticisms. Some opponents
have questioned his concept of consciousness and proposed that personal identity requires more than
just memory, but also other psychological aspects such as personality, desires, and agency (Sauchelli,
2017).
Hume’s Understanding of the Self
● Challenging Locke’s view, the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776), upheld that there is no
evidence in experience for the existence of a continuous and enduring subject. Hume said that
whenever one introspects, he only finds particular impressions or ideas, such as sensations, emotions,
or thoughts. He never finds himself as a distinct entity apart from these impressions or ideas. Hume
concluded that the self is nothing but a collection of changing and fleeting impressions or ideas, without
any underlying substance or unity. Hume's view of the self is often called the "bundle theory" because it
reduces the self to a bundle of impressions or ideas that are constantly in motion and flux (Robertson,
2020). However, Hume failed to give a satisfactory account of how these bundles are united into
distinct and continuous selves.
Kant’s Understanding of the Self
● Immanuel Kant (1724 –1804) appreciated Hume's theory of the self as a bundle of impressions or ideas
constantly in flux because it challenged traditional metaphysical views of the self as a substantial entity
that persists through time. Moreover, Kant agreed with Hume that there is no empirical evidence for the
existence of a substantial self and that our sense of self is constructed out of our experiences and
perceptions. However, Kant also held that there is a necessary condition for the possibility of
experience, which is the unity of apperception or the meaningful organization of objects of perception
within the consciousness. The unity of apperception is the unifying principle that allows us to bring
together the manifold of sensuous awareness of objects into a coherent experience. The unity of
apperception is the "I think" that accompanies all our representations, and it is what allows us to
recognize that all our representations belong to the same subject. In other words, the unity of
apperception is what allows us to have a sense of self as the subject of our experiences. Without the
unity of apperception, our experiences would be a disconnected series of sensations without any
coherence or meaning (Ishida & Sullivan, 2014).
● In summary, Enlightenment philosophers like Descartes, Locke, Hume, and Kant offered diverse
perspectives on the nature of the self. Descartes emphasized a thinking self, distinct from the body,
while Locke focused on the role of experience and memory in shaping personal identity. Hume, on the
other hand, challenged the notion of a fixed self, proposing that it is an ever-changing collection of
experiences and perceptions. These philosophical ideas continue to influence our understanding of the
self and shape discussions in fields such as psychology and neuroscience.
Lesson IV: EXISTENTIALISM AND THE AUTHENTIC SELF
PERSPECTIVE OF SELF
Lesson I: ANCIENT GREEK VIEWS ON THE SELF
ANCIENT GREEK VIEWS ON THE SELF
PLATO
• “The soul of man is immortal and imperishable.”
• The self in ancient Greek philosophy is a complex and fascinating topic that has been explored by
many thinkers. The ancient Greeks had different views on the nature, origin, and function of the self, as
well as its relation to the body, the soul, and the cosmos. Some of the main questions that they
addressed were
1. What is the essence of the self?
2. Is it rational, emotional, or both?
3. Is it immortal or mortal?
4. Is it individual or universal?
5. How does it know itself and the world?
6. How does it act and interact with others?
7. How does it achieve happiness and virtue?
● The Presocratics did not have a single concept of the self, but rather different perspectives that
reflected their wider metaphysical views. For instance, Heraclitus saw the self as a part of the dynamic
and ever-changing process, while Parmenides saw the self as an aspect of a static and eternal being.
Pythagoras and his followers, meanwhile, believed in the reincarnation of souls, which implies that the
self is not bound to a specific body or identity.
● Plato, an idealist ancient Greek philosopher, introduced a more elaborate understanding of the self
which incorporated insights from the Presocratics. Plato's view of the self is reflected in his theory of
Forms, which holds that the material world is only a shadow or copy of the real world of eternal and
unchanging Forms. The self is not identified with the body or the material world but with the soul, which
is immortal and capable of knowing the Forms (Ryan, 2018).
● Plato's views on the soul are not consistent throughout his works. In the Phaedo, he argued that the
soul is rational and immortal, while the body is irrational and mortal. He rejected the idea that the soul is
a harmony of the body because they can conflict with each other. However, in other dialogues, such as
the Phaedrus, Republic, Timaeus, and Laws, he admitted that the soul has non-rational parts, such as
spirit (emotion) and appetite (physical desire). In any case (Mason, 2014), Plato assigned to the soul
the capacities that are generally considered mental, such as thinking, perceiving, feeling, desiring, and
so on.
● According to Plato, the self as a rational and immortal soul has access to the realm of the eternal and
perfect Forms that underlie reality. In the dialogue Meno, Plato introduced the idea that learning is a
process of "recollection" of what the soul already knew before birth. He demonstrated this idea with a
slave boy who can solve a geometry problem by answering Socrates' questions. Plato claimed that this
shows that the boy has a natural capacity to understand the forms that he inherited from a previous life.
● Among Plato’s arguments for the soul’s immortality, the ‘affinity argument’ stands out for its depth and
complexity. This argument draws a parallel between the soul which is non-physical and Plato's Forms -
timeless, unaltered, fundamental, and indivisible truths that underpin reality. By its resemblance to
these Forms, the soul inherits their characteristics: it is eternal, constant, uncompounded, and cannot
be split or destroyed. Thus, Plato concluded that the soul must be immortal. As outlined in Phaedo, the
soul is
○ (1) simple or incomposite,
○ (2) immaterial,
○ (3) unchanging,
○ (4) indivisible, and
, structure of matter that gives it its specific properties and characteristics (Cohen et al., 2016). He
believed that everything in the world has a form and that these forms are what make things what they
are. In addition, Aristotle believed that forms are not just abstract concepts, but rather they are
instantiated in the physical world. For example, the form of a chair is what makes it a chair, and this
form is instantiated in the physical matter that makes up the chair. Aristotle's view on form is closely
related to his concept of substance, which he believed was composed of both matter and form.
● In line with his idea of form and matter, Aristotle viewed the human soul as the form of the body. The
soul is not a material part of the body, but rather a set of capacities that a living thing has, such as the
capacity to metabolize, move about, have desires and fulfill them, perceive, and contemplate. Aristotle
believed that there are different levels of the soul, associated with different capacities or functions, such
as the nutritive soul, the appetitive soul, the locomotive soul, the perceptive soul, and the rational soul.
The rational soul is peculiar to humans and is responsible for the ability to reason and think abstractly
(Cohen et al., 2016).
● Aristotle disagreed with Plato's view of the self as a pure spirit distinct and separate from the body. He
believed that the soul and the body were not two separate things, but two aspects of one thing. But this
does not mean that they cannot be separated at all. Ross (2005) clarifies that the soul and the body are
like form and matter in general. The matter that makes up a living being was there before it became
alive and will be there after it dies. It can only exist in some form, but not necessarily in this form. And
the same form can exist without this matter. For Aristotle, the same form is shared by all members of a
species, and it can exist without any one of them but not without all of them. It needs a certain kind of
matter to exist, not any kind of matter. It needs a body with a specific chemical composition and shape,
and it cannot be in another kind of body (Ross, 2005).
● Aristotle's philosophy includes the concept of the individual as a distinct entity with its unique
characteristics and potentialities (Cohen et al., 2016). He believed that individuals have a specific
nature or essence that determines their capacities and potentialities. For example, a human being has
a rational soul that gives the capacity for reason and abstract thought, which is not shared by other
animals. Aristotle also believed that individuals have telos, or purpose, which is determined by their
nature and potentialities. The ultimate goal of human life, according to Aristotle, is to achieve
eudaimonia, or happiness, by fulfilling one's potentialities and living by one's nature.
● Both Plato and Aristotle were influential in shaping subsequent philosophical discussions on the self.
Their ideas laid the foundation for further explorations into topics such as personal identity,
consciousness, and the relationship between the self and the external world.
Lesson II: THE SELF IN MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY
The Self in Medieval Christianity
● ‘Medieval philosophy' is the term used to describe the philosophical thought that emerged in Western
Europe during the Middle Ages, a period that spanned from the fall of the Roman Empire to the dawn of
the Renaissance. In the medieval view, the concept of the self was greatly shaped by Christian
theology, influenced by thinkers such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.
St. Augustine’s Understanding of the Self
● St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) is a prominent figure in the history of Western philosophy, particularly
known for his extensive contributions to Christian theology. His philosophy of the self was deeply
influenced by his own experiences, his religious beliefs, and his engagement with various philosophical
traditions, including Neo-Platonism. Augustine's views on the self are complex and varied, but some
key themes can be identified. He agreed with some Greek philosophers that the self is composed of
both the body and soul and that the soul is the source of life and the unifier of the body. For Augustine,
the body is the physical form that houses the soul. It is through the body that the soul interacts with the
world and experiences sensory perceptions. He also posited that all living things have souls, even
plants and the world itself. However, he distinguished human souls from other souls by their rationality.
He argued that human souls are immaterial and simple substances that know their existence and can
think of God (Sauchelli, 2017).
● Augustine's conception of the self changed from a Platonic to a Christian one. He agreed with Plato
,St. Thomas Aquinas’ Understanding of the Self
● St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/25–74), another influential Christian thinker in the Middle Ages, built upon
Aristotle's and Augustine's ideas and developed a more rational understanding of the self. He drew on
both Western and Eastern sources to develop his theory of human psychology, based on Aristotle's De
Anima. In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas emphasized the rationality of human beings, their capacity
for knowledge, and their ability to choose between good and evil.
● One important aspect of St. Thomas Aquinas' views on the self is his understanding of the human
person as an integrated whole, consisting of both a material body and a rational and spiritual soul.
Following Aristotle, he believed that the soul is the form or principle of life for the body, giving it its
purpose and guiding its actions. Thus, he considered the soul as the most important part of the self, as
it is responsible for the characteristics that distinguish humans from other animals, such as rationality
and the ability to know and love God. (Kinghorn, 2018). Aquinas also distinguished between human
persons and animals, by claiming that human souls can exist apart from their bodies, while animal
souls cannot. This is because human souls have intellectual and volitional powers that do not depend
on the body, while animal powers do (Kinghorn, 2018).
● According to Aquinas, the human soul is an incorporeal and subsistent principle that is both the form of
a body and a power that operates independently of the body. The human soul's essential role is to
actualize a human body, but it has a power, its intellect, that cannot be carried out through the brain or
any other bodily instrument. Aquinas also argued that the human soul is incorruptible, meaning that it
has no natural basis for ceasing to exist once it is created by God. After death, the soul's incorruptibility
entails that it will continue to exist without the body (Pasnau,2023).
● While Aquinas believed in the soul's capacity to exist without the body, he contended that resurrection
of bodies is required because the life of the whole compound, soul, and body, is required for a person's
survival. This implies that for Aquinas a person's soul surviving apart from its body is not sufficient for
that person's survival.
● In general, Medieval thinkers’ exploration of the self or soul as immortal and spiritual laid the foundation
for the notion of a unified and lasting self in modern philosophy.
Lesson III: THE SELF IN ENLIGHTENMENT THOUGHT
THE SELF IN ENLIGHTENMENT THOUGHT
● Enlightenment philosophy represents a period of intellectual thought in the 17th and 18th centuries that
placed great emphasis on reason, skepticism towards traditional authority, and the pursuit of
knowledge. During this time, several prominent philosophers explored the nature of the self and its
relationship to the mind and body.
Descartes’ Understanding of the Self
● René Descartes (1596-1650), often considered one of the foundational figures of modern philosophy,
believed that the senses do not show us the true nature of things, but only some aspects of them. As a
rationalist thinker, he thought that the human mind can grasp the reality of things through pure
intellectual perception, without relying on the senses. To do this, we need to use our innate ideas of the
essences of mind, matter, and God. In his Meditations, Descartes tried to prove this by first doubting
everything that comes from the senses. Then he found one thing that he could not doubt: his existence
as a thinking being. He called this the cogito, and he used it as a criterion of truth: whatever he can
perceive clearly and distinctly by his intellect must be true.
● Based on his Meditations, Descartes claimed that human beings consist of two different substances: a
material body and an immaterial mind or soul. This dualism implies that the mind and body are
separate entities that interact with each other. This leads to a problem of explaining the self.
● One possible way to understand the Cartesian self is to identify it with the mind or soul. This way of
understanding seems to fit with how Descartes described the self in different contexts (Chamberlain,
2020). The main idea is that the self and the soul are the same thing: there is no difference between
them. As a result, the self has all the properties of the soul. In this life, the self is united with a human
body. The human being is the outcome of this union, which is composed of the self/soul and the human
, accepted in Descartes's time and was consistent with the Judeo-Christian view of humans as a unified
substance with both physical and nonphysical features. Descartes, however, questioned this view by
using the method of doubt and demonstrating that mind and body are distinct since he could doubt the
existence of his body but not his mind or soul.
Locke’s Understanding of the Self
● Descartes’ rationalism was opposed by the empiricist philosopher John Locke (1632–1704). Locke
maintained that all knowledge is derived from experience and sensory perception, not from innate ideas
or principles. He employed the concept of the "tabula rasa," or blank slate, to illustrate that humans are
born without any prior knowledge or personality traits, and that they acquire them through their
interactions with the world. Unlike Descartes’ claim, Locke maintained that personal identity is not a
fixed essence but a consequence of continuous consciousness and memory. He argued that the self is
determined by the sequence of thoughts and feelings that we are aware of and remember.
● According to Locke, personal identity does not depend on the identity of the soul, but on the identity of
consciousness. He declared that a person persists over time if he has the same consciousness, which
he explained as the capacity to reflect on one's past thoughts and actions. Locke's theory has had a
great impact on the history of philosophy, but it has also encountered many criticisms. Some opponents
have questioned his concept of consciousness and proposed that personal identity requires more than
just memory, but also other psychological aspects such as personality, desires, and agency (Sauchelli,
2017).
Hume’s Understanding of the Self
● Challenging Locke’s view, the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776), upheld that there is no
evidence in experience for the existence of a continuous and enduring subject. Hume said that
whenever one introspects, he only finds particular impressions or ideas, such as sensations, emotions,
or thoughts. He never finds himself as a distinct entity apart from these impressions or ideas. Hume
concluded that the self is nothing but a collection of changing and fleeting impressions or ideas, without
any underlying substance or unity. Hume's view of the self is often called the "bundle theory" because it
reduces the self to a bundle of impressions or ideas that are constantly in motion and flux (Robertson,
2020). However, Hume failed to give a satisfactory account of how these bundles are united into
distinct and continuous selves.
Kant’s Understanding of the Self
● Immanuel Kant (1724 –1804) appreciated Hume's theory of the self as a bundle of impressions or ideas
constantly in flux because it challenged traditional metaphysical views of the self as a substantial entity
that persists through time. Moreover, Kant agreed with Hume that there is no empirical evidence for the
existence of a substantial self and that our sense of self is constructed out of our experiences and
perceptions. However, Kant also held that there is a necessary condition for the possibility of
experience, which is the unity of apperception or the meaningful organization of objects of perception
within the consciousness. The unity of apperception is the unifying principle that allows us to bring
together the manifold of sensuous awareness of objects into a coherent experience. The unity of
apperception is the "I think" that accompanies all our representations, and it is what allows us to
recognize that all our representations belong to the same subject. In other words, the unity of
apperception is what allows us to have a sense of self as the subject of our experiences. Without the
unity of apperception, our experiences would be a disconnected series of sensations without any
coherence or meaning (Ishida & Sullivan, 2014).
● In summary, Enlightenment philosophers like Descartes, Locke, Hume, and Kant offered diverse
perspectives on the nature of the self. Descartes emphasized a thinking self, distinct from the body,
while Locke focused on the role of experience and memory in shaping personal identity. Hume, on the
other hand, challenged the notion of a fixed self, proposing that it is an ever-changing collection of
experiences and perceptions. These philosophical ideas continue to influence our understanding of the
self and shape discussions in fields such as psychology and neuroscience.
Lesson IV: EXISTENTIALISM AND THE AUTHENTIC SELF
