Me & My Other Self

This post relates back to the metaphysics class I took one year ago. I hardly understood what went on in the class just like most of my classmates, (maybe, maybe not) but one concept really interested me: concept of personal identity.

There were mainly three theories on personal identity, philosophers had come up with, and the debate is still ongoing.

* Main Theories

I kind of forgot the exact terms and exact explanations but this is what I remember: (shows how effectively knowledge-acquiring system of university worked!)


1. Bodily Continuity Theory
As long as the body remains the same, it's the same person.

> problem: What if the body was swapped? (Classic philosophical thought experiment) The persistence that the same looking person with different memory and way of thinking is the same person is rather counter-intuitive.

2. Soul Theory 
The core of personal identity lies on the soul's existence. Even when the body was swapped or you died, the soul remains the same and thus, it's the same person, you.

> problem: There is no way to make sure that the soul really exists, thus, weakening the whole theory since it cannot be proven otherwise.




3. Psychological Continuity Theory 
As long as the person remembers their own past, it is the same person. This theory also allows the case whereby though the old man cannot remember the young baby's psychology, if he can remember the younger man, who could remember the younger baby, and so on, it is consistent with the theory.

* My personal Pick

My personal favorite was psychological continuity theory because it just felt like the most logical option so far. I was so sure that the memory of the past is the one that constructs the person you are, and therefore, should be considered as the essence of someone's identity. 

But what if the span of remembering your older self was much shorter than expected? Even within the range of a couple of years to months?

That was what I had found out.

One sunny day I happened to accidentally read my past writings and I have to admit, I was so shocked to find out that I had written such things, and that I had thought of such ideas. I couldn't believe it was me who had written them. They just seemed so foreign to me, as if I was seeing myself from the mind of different person, like having different selves within myself. The thing is those writings were not even done long time ago; maybe just a couple of years back.

That brought about some sort of theory shock for a while. If the span of remembering your older self is that short, does this theory still hold out? I mean, there is nothing wrong with the theory per se since I am sure my older self about two years ago whom I can remember, does remember having written such things. However, the short span does suggest that within a surprisingly short time, it is also possible for someone to hold radically different thoughts on various fields. Would that still be considered as the entirely same person? 

In fact, is there really such thing as identity that holds the person together consistently? I mean I know I'm still me alright, but I revisited the previous idea that it's the past that determines who we are.


This awareness got me remembering a quote from Emerson's Self-Reliance:

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” 

My interpretation of this quote in relation to the finding: since humans are simply not consistent by nature, (though we tend to wrongly assume so), there is no point being held down by the kind of person you used to be. Instead, we should simply be the person that we want to be with spontaneity and flexibility.