Identity in Relation to Death: Where Can it be Found?
Introduction
As was discussed in last week’s blog, one of the most quintessential and common questions of philosophy centers around the exploration of our own death and why we, as humans, tend to fear this inevitable occurrence. Many would argue that the potential, that is, not being truly aware of what will happen upon one’s death, is what tends to worry the individual. As there is a lack of concrete evidence of what happens to a human being after his or her death, this leads to anxiety and thus, the unknown creates a situation in which one is unsure of what will ultimately occur to them, if anything untrivial. However, as with nearly every subject, there is the potential for great diversity of both argument and opinion. Just as this potential for something to happen or not may be a reason for which we fear it, alternatively, the potential for an event’s occurrence may actually work to comfort us.
For instance, the potential for life after death may be viewed as comforting to an individual who wishes that they not cease to continue living as they are. On the other hand, the uncertainty of whether this next life may be viewed as either good or bad (positive or negative in nature) may cause this same person to continue fearing the inevitable. Thus, uncertainty is a sort of double-edged sword. The possibility of something we view as positive may be very comforting while the potential for negative events to occur are a common source of anxiety, also.
This debate over the significance and potential events surrounding death ultimately tend to lead philosophers towards a discussion of who we truly are in the first place. Given that so many humans are afraid that one day they will no longer be alive, this must infer that they have a strong understanding of who they are in this moment. It would seem foolish to miss something that you have never truly experienced or do not understand the true meaning of. However, many philosophical debates surrounding this topic have exposed the fact that human beings often believe or “think” that they understand more about the circumstances of their own being than they actually do. A simple discussion between two interlocutors is all that is required to bring this to light.
This idea of knowing oneself versus not even comprehending the source of who we really are is noted in the conversations of “A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality” by John Perry. In this piece, John Perry introduces us to a series of three distinct characters--Cohen, Weirob and Miller. Gretchen Weirob is a philosophy professor who teaches at a small, Midwestern university, and seems to thoroughly enjoy profound discussions with her companions. The debates in this piece surround the circumstances of Professor Gretchen Weirob’s eventual death, and the plausibility of there being life afterwards. The characters even make attempts at classifying more deeply the potential types of existence that may be possible after such an occurrence (Perry 1).
As stated prior, the debate over death and its implications generally leads to a greater discussion of whether or not we are truly aware of our own circumstances here on earth as we live. The article is divided into a series of three “nights” in which the characters converse over these very ideas (Perry 1). These very debates include those similar to David Chalmers in “The Hard Problem of Consciousness,” about how we can combine a comprehension of a physical brain developing a conscious experience (0:55). Before addressing my beliefs of whether or not I am the same person that I was when I was only 10 years old, it is first necessary to thoroughly comprehend the arguments made in this piece in order to provide oneself with sufficient background context of the various plausibilities. I will further delineate the arguments made on each side of this debate below before discussing how this relates to my own experience.
Mapping of Arguments in The First Night of John Perry’s Piece
On the first night in the piece, Professor Gretchen Weirob is in a situation of near-death. She is still quite lucid and is not experiencing significant levels of pain, yet, she is still unsure of what is to come. It is at this moment that her friend, Sam Miller, enters the hospital room to speak with her, during which time a profound debate occurs surrounding the truths of one’s occurrence and its potential ceasing. Weirob expresses to Mr. Miller that attempts to convince her of a religious belief (for example, the existence of God) will not suffice in the debate (as she will not be convinced of this and attempts would be viewed as fruitless). However, she concedes at the beginning of the conversation that simply providing her with the plausibility of life after death would be enough to comfort her (it is not necessary to clearly convince her that there will be a continuation after the event) (Perry 1).
During the debate, Sam Miller is sure to emphasize his understanding that the soul (also, referencing the notions of one’s consciousness, mind, and other principles) are only related to one’s physical body for the relatively short time that he or she is alive (the thesis in his argument). It is for this reason that when one views a person whom they are familiar with, they are often able to predict what that person’s eventual actions, beliefs or desires are. They are ultimately interacting with the soul, which does share a physical connection with the body but only for now. However, this argument ceases to convince Professor Weirob of the truths surrounding the meanings of life and death (Perry 6). She uses a variety of analogies and logical conclusions in order to politely refute this understanding.
For example, Sam Miller makes the argument that human beings are, at the very basis of their being, defined by their one human soul and not by the physical body in which it dwells. Therefore, this is what gives one the ability to “understand” how someone tends to behave or act through having experience with them in the past. This is heavily, yet politely, refuted by Professor Weirob through the use of two separate analogies.
Firstly, Professor Weirob asks that Sam Miller take a chocolate from a bunch that she had previously been gifted with that day. In doing so, Miller chooses a piece including a swirl on its top. When asked why, Miller explains that through the virtue of understanding that chocolates of that appearance generally contain caramel on the inside, he was then able to deduce that he would be able to enjoy his chosen flavor. It is at this point that Professor Weirob points out that with the candy, Sam was able to deduce an innate quality simply through appearance. She then explains that, in her opinion, this would make it plausible to believe that it is also possible to know someone based on physical appearance and how the individual looks physically, not just based on their soul. This would mean one’s physicality may play a role in true identity (Perry 6).
It is at this point that Miller announces that, while this would appear to be the case, he deduces that the chocolate contains caramel as he has had experience with the candy before. Just as one is able to view the physical body of someone who they are familiar with and, from here, deduce that the same soul with which they once interacted is inside, he is able to predict that the caramel will be inside the chocolate. This is not sufficient to convince Professor Weirob of the notion of one human soul that is the source of humanity’s true identity (Perry 6).
In order to refute the notion that we know for sure that the source of human identity is one soul, Weirob uses the example of the Blue River. Sam Miller explains that even if he was unsure of where he was, he would be able to note the location and presence of the Blue River based on its turbidity and the resultant features. However, this is a characteristic that is true of the river, or the external feature, and not of the water within. At any moment, as the river runs, the water that was in one location at one time is no longer in that location later on. Therefore, how is it that we cannot say the same is true for the soul? She asks if it is possible that we have a soul that is not one single entity, but something that is of many and that changes over time. As we cannot view and note (thus, “experience” firsthand) the presence of our own soul, then we are really unable to know who we really are (Perry 8). If we do not truly understand something as basic as ourselves, then how is it possible that we can infer what may occur after the life we live today has been altered by death? As Sam Miller is not able to refute this argument fully, among others, Professor Weirob is not convinced of his argument and the day continues.
On the second night of the John Perry piece, Sam Miller enters the hospital room of Professor Weirob with a new manner of viewing one’s identity in relation to his or her death. He believes that he will be able to convince Weirob by providing an alternate perspective of what it truly means to be human. Miller implies that there is no need to examine a dichotomy when it comes to addressing the human identity. This is to say, it is possible that one’s true identity is neither based on the human body nor the soul itself. Looking solely at either of these parts would be useless as they are only just that, parts. Miller argues that while looking at two separate sections of the Blue River, one is able to know that, while they look different, they are still the same entity (the river). Also, if one were to leave a baseball game and come back, the game would still be the same, despite the obvious differences in players, times, etc. In Miller’s view humans are the same way. They are complex beings whose true identity is not a result of one part, but rather, of a multitude of parts (Perry 13).
What makes a human being a person is the fact that they are a person in itself, and this stems from memory. One’s memories are only his or her own, as no one can truly know what someone else is thinking (at least, there is no proof of it). Thus, if it were possible for there to be another being in Heaven or in the future that shared the thoughts of someone alive today, this would prove that, indeed, it is possible to “survive” (Perry 15).
It is with this logic that Weirob is able to refute the argument made by Miller. Weirob states that in philosophy, it is well known (and one of the first concepts learned) that if A=B, and C=B, then A=C by proxy. Therefore, if the possibility of survival after death would relate not only to memory, but also, to the number of individuals that would be created (Perry 18). She states that if God created someone in heaven before her earthly being, then she would essentially have been killed. Additionally, if he created one in heaven and then another, she asks whether the first version of herself would then cease to be her. If one could simply have the same memory as another at the same time, then it would effectively refute the very survival of the first one (Perry 20).
In the third portion of the piece, this idea of death and its relation to identity is further explored through the example of Julia North, who was deemed the survivor of a physical accident after her brain was transplanted into the body of her mother. Many have argued that this is evidence that one’s identity is linked less with the body as it is with the mind, yet others point to the way in which these conclusions are made (decisions by the Supreme Court to consider Julia the survivor and the general opinion of the public). Therefore, Professor Weirob has difficulty accepting this notion of the brain being inherently connected with one’s personal identity when compared to the physical body (Perry 21).
Blog Questions (with Context from Above Argument Mapping and Other Sources)
After having thoroughly examined and explained the arguments made in the Perry piece above, it is now necessary that I discuss my beliefs of whether or not I am the same person that I was when I was only 10 years old. Clearly, many things have changed since this time 10 years ago. In the context of the arguments made in the Perry piece, I believe that some of them are useful in contextualizing my experience. Much like the “Sam Miller” character in the piece, I do believe that human beings do not derive their “identity” entirely from the soul nor entirely from the body. Indeed, “identity,” or the various characteristics that make up a person, are often the result of a conglomeration of many distinct segments that come together as one to create the being that we are. However, I do think that the Perry piece may, in some manners, present another simplification that may be refuted.
The characters in the piece consistently talk about the true source of one’s “identity” and some of the characters argue that this identity originates from several multi-faceted parts that come together to make up the whole. While I do think that this is a plausible argument, I still believe that the notion of “identity” should not be viewed as one single concept. It is still possible that identity not only comes from many places, but that there are many different types of identities themselves. For example, one may have a physical, mental, social, emotional, spiritual, or other type of identity. It is possible that, through life’s experiences, some of our identities become more developed or less so than others. Someone may demonstrate strong examples of emotion yet not often show socialization as a central part of their life. Alternatively, someone may be very spiritual in nature but not be as concerned with the physical aspects of their body and modify their appearance in any significant way. Thus, upon one’s death, it is plausible that while some parts of our identity survive, other parts may not. While our physicality may diminish, other non-physical aspects may flourish. Also in life, while we may flourish in some ways we may lack development in other ways. This all hinges on the concept that, in life, we are shaped most by the experiences that we each create for ourselves.
Every single moment of our lives, we are living in a millisecond that will never again be as it was just shortly ago. At this very time, a mixture of sounds, smells, dates, colors, light, and feelings combined to create a time that we will never have the ability to experience again. As we are all located in different locations (especially in this current era of the Coronavirus Pandemic), we are each experiencing something that no one else is able to understand entirely. In addition, as these experiences are so very diverse from one another, some individuals face challenges and find joy that others will never quite obtain or feel. Depending on these unique joys and challenges of life, we are forced to adapt in many ways to our environment. If we are forced to think about solutions to difficult problems, we may develop our mental identity to an increased extent. If we are forced to partake in physically demanding labor, then there is an increased potential for our physical identity to be more thoroughly developed. If we partake in religious experiences often that, for us, add meaning to the lives we live, then we may develop our spiritual identity (and so on).
In my personal life, I was born in Rotterdam, NY. At a young age, I spent my days playing in the park with my friends and playing basketball at my elementary school, a small institution located in Schenectady. After graduating from this school, my family and I proceeded to move to Loudonville, NY where I remain to this day. Needless to say, my interests and daily activities have changed significantly. While I once spent a large portion of my time studying animals and their behavior, I now focus on the study of political science and languages, particularly Spanish. In my free time, while I used to spend most of it playing basketball, I now enjoy travelling and spending time walking in the outdoors. Additionally, I enjoy participating in organizations with similar interests to my own on campus.
The reason that I have changed so much is due to the many experiences I have had over time that are unique to myself (just as the experiences of each other person is unique to them). Identity could be defined as “the conglomeration of characteristics that make up the individual.” This is broadly defined on purpose, as it is designed to remain open to all kinds of characteristics in all types of situations. Because an individual, by this definition, is defined by his characteristics, then this would mean that I am not the same person I was 10 years ago, nor is it likely that anyone else is. However, as the concept of “personhood” is such a compilation of so many different ideas and attributes, it is likely that we are a much different person in some ways from 10 years ago than we are in others.
For example, based on my physical experiences over the last 10 years, I would say that I am physically closer to the person I was 10 years ago than I am mentally. I am spiritually closer to the person I was 10 years ago than I am emotionally. In either case, I am a very different person. Nevertheless, some characteristics that are less developed through experience may appear closer to their original state than those which have been more thoroughly altered.
It is from this information that I conclude that I am not the same person that I was 10 years ago. The implications of this answer include that one’s experience (not necessarily memories, as the reading shows how memories may simply “seem to” be true but not “be” true) are the true determinants of how one will develop and change. It is thus plausible that, upon death, while the experience may affect how certain aspects of our identity develop, or diminish and cease to be, our conscious identity may become stronger to face this challenge (although this is simply an implication based on the line of logic presented earlier). Memory would likely continue to exist, as it is not connected to the physical identity that generally begins to diminish following death. However, it may weaken over time if it is not further developed or necessary in order to survive. With this theory, it would be our responsibility to develop all identities within to the greatest extent possible in order to find meaning in life and in death, as we can only develop through experience.
Connections Between Other Sources
It is clear that the arguments in the debate surrounding identity and death are connected to some of the supplemental materials that we have been given in class to discuss. For example, it seems noteworthy to me that in the “Symmetry Argument Against the Badness of Death” video, Professor Travis Timmerman speaks to the fact that most humans tend to look towards the future and worry about their inevitable death as opposed to looking towards the past and stressing over not being born earlier. However, after giving more thought to the issue of why we change our identities over time, I now believe that I better understand that comprehension of this argument could be enhanced when one takes experience into consideration (1:52). We may fear death because it is something that we have experienced, just as after tasting our favorite food once we might miss it if we did not have the opportunity to ever eat it again. Experience provides context, and context provides meaning. Without meaning, humans would not understand the processes which they undergo, and thus, they would not have much reason to miss them once they are gone.
Another video that I believe has helped me to better comprehend the debates surrounding death and identity is that of “Personal Identity (The Narrative Self).” In this video, Professor Elizabeth Camp discusses prior ideas that human beings should not be considered “homo sapiens,” but rather, as “human narrans,” reflecting the fact that we do not inherently know things. Instead, we learn them through the ability to tell and relate stories to one another, and to interpret these accounts (0:41). There is perhaps no better manner of interpreting a story than that of one’s own life, the plot being structured by involvement in occurrences along the way. Ultimately, I think that these videos provide even more context after reading and thinking about Perry’s article than watching them before, as I have compared my understanding of them before and after the reading.
Works Cited
Camp, Elisabeth. PHILOSOPHY - Mind: Personal Identity (The Narrative Self ... 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcIqoN9oRgo.
Chalmers, David. Hard Problem of Consciousness — David Chalmers - YouTube. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5DfnIjZPGw.
Green, Hank. Personal Identity: Crash Course Philosophy #19 - YouTube. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqDnLNRuSc.
Lyon, Marcus. Is Your Identity given or Created? | Marcus Lyon ... 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tJKGZ_xSZ0.
Perry, John. A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality. 1978, rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil201/Perry.pdf.
Timmerman, Travis. Symmetry Argument Against the Badness of Death - Ethics ... 2017,
Comments
Post a Comment