From John Locke to Jean Baudrillard: Critical notes on the identity

Abstract

The article reveals a difference in the interpretation of the concept of identity in classical and postmodern philosophy. The author shows that this theme has appeared in the history of European philosophy after the publication of the worksof J. Locke and D. Hume. The complexity of the problem is that it involves two opposite conditions – identity and changeability. Locke interprets identity as some substance or a set of specific characteristics, which possessa certain regularity. Therefore, you can evaluate theclassical version of identity as a variant of the philosophical consciousness of modern age, especially clearly represented in educational philosophy. This approach is consistent with the general cognitive aim of classical philosophy – to find behind the number of differences a certain identity. Locke shows the complexity and multidimensionality of the problem, especially inconsistent cognition of objects, living creatures and finally human himself. He notes that in inanimate nature and even in the animal kingdom, the identity often is obvious and intact. However, in relation to the man these statements lose their value. First, man is conscious and endowed with a complex structure.

Really, what is the basis of human identity? According to Freud, such foundation is the body. However, man is still the soul and spirit. They can also serve as indicators of human identity. In other words, the man is original, unique. To analyze a particular person by the same standards is impossible. For example, you can to conceive the identity of only one soul in different people. However, according to Locke nothing prevent the same individual spirit to connect with different bodies. The philosopher is critical to the idea of metempsychosis. Even if we admit such transformation of a man into animal, no one would ever consider, for example, the pig human. The identity of a person is determined by different components (body, soul, spirit), and these components are difficult to combine and, therefore, any identity can appear fragile, ephemeral, contradictory. John Locke, however, is concerned not so much with the differenceof the components of the idea of a man as with finding their identities. The criterion for such bonding is according to Locke the notion of personality.

The author shows that in the historical-philosophical tradition developed two criteria for determining the identity of man. According to the first criterion, a necessary and sufficient condition is corporal identity, according to the second criterion – the identity of consciousnessstates. In most cases, these criteria complement each other. However, conflicting situations are possible (for example, a "body exchange" between a cobbler and a prince,described by Locke). Then the question arises, what criterion, corporal or spiritual, takes precedence?

Locke and Hume's concepts of personality are widely known as the classic examples of the analysis of this problem. All subsequent applications to the problem of individual sameness of the bodies come from their achievements, though expressed by them in a negative form.

The article raises the question: what ensures the consistency in the identity process– personality, spirituality, consciousness? In modern philosophical literature, the concept of personality is associated with socialization, spirituality or responsibility. It is clear that theindividual, who breaks the law, puts himself outside the society, hardly deserves the name of "personality." However, the error of such examinations is that these personality’s attributes are assessed as associated. Relatively speaking, the personality has responsibility, and therefore, has socialization. Moreover, if it acts on behalf of the society, then you can call it spiritual. In fact, these attributes often are not arranged in a line. Socializationof personality can mean the ultimate and mindless conformism. Spirituality does not always imply the unconditional "fit" into society. Socrates, as you know,has obtained the death sentence "on behalf of society". Is there reason to deny the spirituality of an ascetic or a hermit? Can we consider a Buddhist to be “non-person” only because he avoids social problems?

The author also discusses the concept of Peter Strawson, a prominent representative of analytical philosophy. The article analyzes different interpretations of personality. In modern language, the personality is something that applies to human beings in general and opposes to thing. The personality is a "goal in itself"; and the value of things depends onusing them for our purposes; the personality should not be used as aninstrument for any purpose. The personality is a being with legal rights and duties. The personality is the one who plays the social role and performs certain functions. Another necessary condition for these basic meanings of the word "personality" is the following: a personality is a being, which is conscious of its identity through time.

The article points at the desacralization and devaluation of the personalityas a character of our epoch. Since postmodern consciousness affirms the acceptance of plurality and relativity in all circumstances, the personality is crushed and desacralized. Inherent internal multiplicity prevents itfrom exercising its sensitivity and openness to other people. The personality inevitably becomes asocial. Instead of the desired consistency, the individual revealsthe desire to fit intosocial conjuncture. It is difficult for him to ensure the internal coherence of his ownimages. Can we say that the given individual is the same person he was a year ago, a day ago, a minute ago? In other words, what allows us to distinguish one person from another? What determines the conditional consistency of the personality? And here comes another consideration. The personality is able to secure its unity through time. In other words, unlike the "man without qualities", personality is able not only to gain valuable qualities, but also to keep them within a certain time.

The article also notes that in our days people do not want to be themselves, they are looking for another race, another nation or gender. Individuals are tired from their own gender, they dream to change it. You can often meet effeminate men and masculine womenin contemporary culture. A white man wants to be an African; a black wants to be white. Inter-ethnic marriages are not uncommon, religious tolerance overcomes the passionate attachment to one’s own cult. In case of defining own identity, when the voice of the blood, of the earth or of the culture is shakyarise difficulties. Postmodernists are talking about the “zero-identity”. Increasingly we found a "man without qualities" (Musil), the individual with undeveloped consciousness and psychics, that often creates difficulties for attribution of certain people.