1. 2010
HPL 111 Theories of Human Nature
JOHN LOCKE: AN ESSAY CONCERNING
HUMAN UNDERSTANDING

2. October 7, 2010
John Locke, born in a cottage in Wrington, Somerset, is arguably one of the greatest and
most influential philosophers in English history. He lived during the 17th century and is still
known today as the Father of Liberalism. He has introduced a plethora of concepts and ideas on
which philosophy has evolved over time; one of which is his theory of personal identity. Locke
believed that the true essence of wisdom and knowledge derived from the senses as well as
human experience. He elaborates on this concept in his work, “An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding”. In Chapter Twenty Seven titled, Of Identity and Diversity, Locke seeks to
establish that a “Person” is a thinking and intellectual being capable of structure, joy, and misery,
that has the ability to reason as well as reflect; able to remain constant with time if it retains
consciousness. He proves such theory by arguing that the being remains the same person as long
as it can recount past actions. Locke continues by presenting the idea of the transference of
2
consciousness from one person or “thinking substance” to another; if two beings embody the
same consciousness then they are the same person. Lastly, Locke equates personal identity to
consciousness, proving that the essence of a person is the beings awareness of the present and the
past.
Locke believes that consciousness makes personal identity; claiming that the
consciousness,” which always remains present in the mind”1, is the same thinking essence that
remains in the mind along with thought. Locke found a slight glitch in his theory, “the
consciousness, being interrupted always by forgetfulness, there being no moment of our lives
wherein we have the whole train of all our past actions before our own eyes.” 2 He began to
question if a being is still of its original consciousness if it fails to recall past thoughts. “We
1
Stephens, William O. The Person (Readings in Human Nature): John Locke (An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding). New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2006, 83.
2
(Stephens, 82)

3. October 7, 2010
losing the sight of our past selves, doubts are raised whether we are the same thinking thing.” 3
He feels that once one loses the ability to recollect the past, they have lost consciousness of the
past and in effect is a different person. Locke explains that when sound asleep ones
consciousness is no longer of any service, consciousness only processes waking thoughts.
In terms of punishment and chastisement, Locke uses an example with Socrates where he
is defending the actions of an unconscious Socrates arguing his innocence on a count that
because he was not of his rational mind it is unjust to reprimand him for his actions. “And to
punish Socrates waking, for what sleeping Socrates thought, and waking Socrates was never
conscious of, would be no more of right, than to punish one twin for what his brother-twin did.”4
He feels that Socrates was a different person when he committed the act so as a result should not
be judged for the event. Locke then presents an objection, saying that if one loses all memory of
some parts of their life without any possibility of regaining those thoughts, is this still the same
3
person? Locke says no, returning to the analogy of punishment saying, “human laws not
punishing the madman for the sober man’s actions, nor the sober man for what the madman did,
thereby making them two persons.”5 Locke feels that society creates two separate yet same
beings when one claims that the immoral or illegal actions are other than themselves; two
persons now exist, one who breaks the law and another who is obedient.
A individual’s personal identity depends solely on that same consciousness, whether the
person is one individual substance or several others. Locke feels that if it is possible for the same
consciousness to be transferred from one person to another, then it is possible that two different
substances can form one person. “So that whatever has the consciousness of present and past
3
(Stephens, 82)
4
(Stephens, 86)
5
(Stephens, 86)

4. October 7, 2010
actions, is the same person to whom they both belong.”6 Locke follows with some analogizes
including Noah and the Ark, as well as the Thames, expressing that when a being positions
themselves right in-line with the thinking and motives of another, they have successfully made
themselves one with that individual.
“For as to this point of being the same self, it matters not whether this present self be
made up of the same or other substances, I being as much concerned, and as justly
accountable for any action was done a thousand years since, appropriated to me now by
this self-consciousness, as I am, for what I did the last moment.”7
When one can sincerely experience empathy or sympathy for another, truly understanding the
pain, hurt, and joy regardless of the physical presence during the time, the two or more have
become of the same self.
Personal identity is consciousness, for consciousness alone makes self. Locke feels that it
4
8
is “impossible to make personal identity to consist in anything but consciousness.” Only
consciousness can bring together experiences in an individual; the identity of a substance (a
vessel or body) lacks such abilities. Where there is no consciousness, a person cannot exist for “a
carcass may be a person, as well as any sort of substance be so without consciousness.” 9 Locke
furthers this argument with an example involving the detachment of a finger from its body,
where once the finger was cut off the body’s consciousness no longer considered the finger apart
the whole. Personal identity does not reside in the identity of substance; it thrives in the identity
of consciousness.
6
(Stephens, 85)
7
(Stephens, 85)
8
(Stephens, 87)
9
(Stephens, 87)

5. October 7, 2010
In cases where two unexplainable consciousnesses are acting in the same body verses one
consciousness is occupying two or more distinct bodies, Locke is establishing that just as one
person cannot exist in two different bodies, one man remains the same regardless of his dress or
outer appearance. “So that self is not determined by identity or diversity of substance, which it
cannot be sure of, but only by identity of consciousness.”10 Locke concludes that “person” is an
intelligential being that functions through its consciousness, enabling it to consider itself as itself,
comprehend the concept of law, as well as reflects on past experiences.
The French physician and philosopher, J.O. De La Mettrie composed a book in 1747
titled Man a Machine. Due to his rigid style of opposition, he was forced to flee from France
because of the reticule he was faced with in his home country. In his book, he rejected the
ideologies of renounced philosophers such as Decartes, Malebrache, and Locke. He felt that
Descartes and Malebrache argued spiritualism, claiming that the composition of a physical and
5
mental substance makes a “person”. Mettrie categorizes Lockes views under “materialism”,
where matter has the ability to think. He views “man” as matter and feels that “Man is such a
complicated machine that it is impossible to form a clear idea of it beforehand and hence
impossible to define it.” The human body is a mechanical device that is constantly in motion. He
says that all ideas are “awakened in the same way that a gardener who knows plants recalls, at
the sight of them, all the stages of their growth.”11 Knowledge is a compilation of words that is
organized in the brain to distinguish and remember past events. Similar to the functions of a
mechanical device, information is delivered into the input process and later outputted. Mettrie
relates human beings to animals in terms of training. The man and women’s exposure to
mathematics, science, languages, and the arts is a result of the molding their minds to rule.
10
(Stephens, 88)
11
Stephens, William O. The Person (Readings in Human Nature): J.O.De La Mettrie(Man a Machine). New Jersey:
Pearson Education, 2006, 95.

6. October 7, 2010
Where a human has be programmed to become an “author” an animal has been groomed remain
subservient.
Mettrie feels that the soul or essence of a person lies in the organs of the body. He admits
that the true nature of the human family is unknown, however, the answers will be found in the
study of the body. For this reason, Mettries feels that only physicians, individuals who have
dedicated years to the study of the body, are qualified to present any arguments on the topic of
human nature. He encourages the masses to do away with the theology of these philosophers and
to start on “what must be thought for the sake of repose in life.”12
In response to these arguments, Locke mainly disagrees with the soul being stored in the
organs of the body. Mettrie’s belief of “soul” is equal to Locke’s understanding of personal
identity. Locke would counter this argument my reiterating that “self” or “soul” is not
determined by the physical body or substance of an individual. The heart, kidneys, lungs, and
6
even the brain are not equipped to genuinely analyze the essence of the human being. These
organs are there to simply perform the tasks given. Now, the brain does have to ability to think
which enables it to tap into its sense of consciousness. From this the person can now reflect on
the past and understand the present. Locke feels that in an event that a person’s kidney was being
removed, “having no longer any consciousness, it is no more of a man’s self than any other
matter of the universe.”13 John Locke is an avid believer that consciousness determines personal
identity; rather than looking for the essence of man in his organs, if his consciousness was
examined, his soul and personal identity would soon become evident.
12
(Stephens, 93)
13
(Stephens, 88)