Two Theories on Personhood: Ego & Bundle Theory - Essay Sample

Introduction

Two theories explain the nature of personhood. The arguments are the ego theory and bundle theory. Despite rejecting the fact that the mind and the body form a personal identity, it is also necessary to refuse the claim that the accumulation of a person`s body parts creates identity. The argument is such that there is no self-theory since there existed a soul, which is part of personhood. According to Giles, the acknowledgement of consciousness means there existed a soul. Therefore, this essay will give an account of the soul theory concerning ego theory is contrary to the bundle theory.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

A soul is a representation of every human being in the pure form thus being untouchable by the physical beings or things, and the soul is considered immortal. The soul is the actual representation of a person and their character, souls continue living even after the physical death of the body, and our personalities and actions are a result of the personal free will in combination with the drive from the soul. The soul is the basis of many religious beliefs with the majority of religions warning against wrongdoing in the physical world because the punishment or reward in the afterlife will squarely rest on our souls. Different religions which belief in incarnation warn that if a person is evil and they die then their soul is given the body of a monstrous animal and their incarnated life will be full of suffering. Souls exist and that they influence our Daly characters because how then can a person explain the outrageous behaviour of some people in history like Hitler who is responsible for so many wrongs and yet they were never punished. The other argument is that if there was no soul how are we able to somehow agree universally on rights and mistakes even in uneducated groups and people who have no religion. The character of a person is inborn and is influenced by the soul, making nature a basis of proving that souls exist.

The awareness of self comes from the realisation of personal interpretations of personal senses. People cannot perceive because they ought to do so, but they do not know how to do so. Personhood is the result of the conscious realisation that one is different from other beings, that a person is a separate entity from the additional thinking beings. Irrespective of the changes people experience, the complexity of personhood is bundled across one`s life and remains unchanged from the onset of life. According to Hertogh (2016), the cogito argument assumes a fixed identity such that the pillar of thoughts cannot be altered by shifting thoughts. Kim (2018) points out that the ego theory is programmed to think and perceive consciously without choosing to do so but is enabled to comprehend consciously. Kim further explains that the human consciousness is interlocked with the broken chain of memory that interrupts personhood since we cannot recall or imagine in absolute. The ego theory according to Locke constitutes the nature of a person being a thinking substance that is unchanged by the experiences one goes through in life. Personhood represents the mental aspect and not the physical body ( ). Consciousness, which is the personal experience is what sparks up own identity in itself. Locke insists that a man is not a person but rather a compound word like tree, wolf, mountain. The existence of a man is recognised that he has life whereas personhood is manifested by conscious awareness. The awareness is of the present mental state of the soul in the physical body, which is unaffected of perception the person's existence or past. Personhood is unavoidably fixed by awareness of past events. In the same way, forgetting plays a vital role yet it cannot change the linear nature of personhood.

According to Dr V.S. Ramachandran in his book Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind, that is precisely what makes the human mind work. However, for thousands of years, there has been a belief pervading almost every culture that there is something more to humans than merely the sum of their parts, something intangible and invisible. There are countless different variations on soul theory, but it has two key aspects that will be addressed here: that it is the spark of life and consciousness, and that it survives after the death of the body. Beyond being immortal, the soul lives potentially countless lives in potentially infinite shapes over time. Furthermore, in theory, the soul is not only what provides consciousness, but is consciousness itself. Therefore, it is the same consciousness repeatedly living in different bodies and having little to no recollection of the previous iterations. Sensations such as deja vu have been ascribed to the soul on the idea that the soul has encountered the situation before even if the current body and brain have not, which points to a kind of physical memory of previous incarnations of the soul.

Soul theory takes a different tact and one that takes a few more steps. The most obvious response to why one would still feel my arm after it having been cut off is that the soul still has a division that occupies the place where the physical arm once was. This is fine in the case of merely feeling that it exists, but the pain that frequently accompanies phantom limbs complicates matters. One sufferer described the pain like that of a tightly clenched fist that cannot be unclenched, and if it were the soul's arm, why would the soul not merely unclench the fist. The only reason for the soul to enter into a body as if it were some symbiotic relationship. Granting that, it makes sense that the soul is not functioning correctly if it is not in an organisation; therefore, the "soul arm" that exists without the physical arm would not be working correctly, and could conceivably be creating the pain.

Mill operator presumes that there could be a slim chance of carrying on with a post-existence. Consequently, it is because he contended that on the off chance that it is a similar body, at that point must be the same soul. This drove Weirob into addressing Miller on how one insignificant soul can be similarly identified with one organisation. Mill operator clarified that his spirit hypothesis of the same body, the same soul is speculation of how we see individuals based off a back perception. Weirob fathomed that spirits by definition could not be seen or detected in any capacity. From now on, she reasoned that if the body it dwells in, at that point, later on, recognises the spirit there is nobody with which to distinguish the spirit. Any data of similarity of the soul can not bolster our decisions concerning identity. Regardless of whether ghosts exist, they are unsatisfactory to decisions of distinctive character. In this way, it is unimaginable that an individual could keep on living as a similar individual after the deterioration of the body.

Weirob's chocolate comparison's motivation was to approve to Miller that no one knows the premise of experience that equivalence of body breaks even with the equality of self. For this situation, when Weirob offered a bit of chocolate to Miller he, explicitly, picked a sort of chocolate with a sure of caramel twirl on top. Mill operator clarifies that because the bit of chocolate has the unmistakable twirl on top at that point, it must be a similar taste as the past chocolates he has had previously. Same with individual personality, Miller is resolved that on the off chance that somebody perceives your mental qualities, attitude, thoughts, and activities then it should quickly be the properties of your spirit. Weirob specifies, "Might you be able to have built up the connection had you never been permitted to nibble into a treat and never observed what happened when another person bit into one? You could have framed speculation, "same whirl, same filling." But might you be able to have at any point built up it?" (Weirob 372). As an outline, Weirob utilizing the crate of chocolates expresses that in light of the fact that there is no chance to get of tasting, seeing, or contacting a spirit at that point, Miller couldn't in any way, shape or form have a structure to recognize the theory of similarity of soul implies equality of self. Under those conditions, "... If such decisions were extremely about spirits, they would all be unfounded and without establishment. For we have no immediate strategy for watching equivalence of soul, thus and this is the point made by the treated model we can have no circuitous technique either" (Weirob 373), which in her contention she legitimizes that a spirit may not direct trademark or social qualities when there could be a progression of comparative souls in a single body.

These theories by no means are the end all be all of the debate, as there are still countless mysteries still plaguing the issue of consciousness. Although there is no guarantee that one will remain the same after death, I firmly believe that a part of our personal beliefs, values, characteristics and mentality will stay with us forever. On the other hand, many believe that consciousness is developed by the brain, but of course, there is no evidence to justify that assumption. Also, a similarity of psychological characteristics is observable, and it can confirm that the identity of the body and the soul interact together well. A soul, to me, is an intangible, invisible, and immaterial substance that can live on dissociated from the body. Insomuch as realising the aspect of death can vary for everyone, and that is because of religion. Believers, such as me, like to think to themselves that to understand the concept of an immortal soul we must believe in a higher power or a biblical basis, to recognise the spiritual dimensions of life. Most importantly, with this mentality, I am more likely to pass away with the reassurance of living an immortal being.

Works Cited

Hertogh, C. P. "Thought Experiment Analyses of Rene Descartes' Cogito." Trans/Form/Acao 39.3 (2016): 9-22.

Kim, Han-Kyul. "Locke's Ideas of Mind and Body." (2018).

Perry, John. "Identity and Self-Knowledge." (2017).

Strawson, Galen. "'The Secrets of All Hearts': Locke on Personal Identity." Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 76 (2015): 111-141.

Ramachandran, Vilayanur S., Sandra Blakeslee, and Neil Shah. Phantoms in the brain: Probing the mysteries of the human mind. New York: William Morrow, 1998.

Perry, John (1978). "A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality" Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.