IndexThe acquisition of "experience"The relevance of empiricism to morality and reasoningHow experience shapes identityLocke and Hume on identityLocke's perspective on identityThe Hume's perspective and criticism of Locke's positionConclusionJohn Locke and David Hume were considered to be two of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of their time. During the Enlightenment, these two men spent much of their time delving into the concepts that make the human mind so abstract. Both men were very well aware of man's consciousness and the subjectivity that comes from their ideas. Ideas, opinions, notions: all these are terms that resonate with subjectivity. Self-proclaimed empiricists in their own right, both men fully recognized that any notion concerning anything that man could possibly know, or even fathom, was based solely on experience. The experience itself can be defined subjectively; one can experience an event firsthand, witness it happening to someone else, hear another person's firsthand experience (from said person's point of view), or hear about it from someone else. Regardless of how one might gain this hypothetical experience, it is through personal perception, repetition, and the ability to understand the complexity behind the circumstances of one's situation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay While ethics, morals and the nature of all things that can be considered opposite: “right” and “wrong”, “hot” and “cold”, “yes” or “no” are all determined based on our individual understanding of such concepts, they are all realized based on how we perceive them and to what extent. Knowledge of anything is not ingrained in our minds from birth; must be obtained. To gain this knowledge, both Hume and Locke agree that one must experience life. In this way, we allow ourselves to perceive the world around us, thus providing us with the opportunity to develop our current sense of reasoning. “We can see how they gradually come to have more ideas, which they do only by acquiring ideas provided by experience and observation of things. This might be enough to convince us that they — ideas — are not characters imprinted in the mind from birth.” (Locke, J, Book I, 1690, p.14) Through our experiences, most of us become more developed human beings. In turn, our perception of the world around us changes as we grow and experience situations more frequently. Through the acquisition of clearer knowledge and reasoning comes a sense of identity and self-awareness. It is on this concept that the two philosophers have some contradictory perspectives. The idea of ​​personal identity is undoubtedly subjective. However, Hume states that this concept is so changeable and variable that the term is practically obsolete. (Hume, D., 1739, p. 14) Locke also agrees that one's identity is almost inevitably subject to change as a person ages, but that identity in and of itself certainly exists. (Locke, J., 1690, Book II, p. 113) Similar in nature, Locke's and Hume's ideologies each offer a unique insight into how people obtain their levels of thinking and how they relate them to their personal identities. While identity and rationality are two distinct concepts, the former is the result of the latter. Whether or not the concept of “identity” has any significant meaning is debatable according to the works of these men, but both agree that there is a certain degree ofsubjectivity in it. Furthermore, these philosophers have very empirical philosophical views, and therefore agree that everything we perceive – in the world, outside of us and inside of us – is subject to change as well as different perceptions. In order for us to experience substantial emotions or thoughts about life or ourselves, I agree with Locke and Hume that our reasoning and ability to self-identify can only come with time and experience. The Acquisition of “Experience” How a person can arrive at any kind of experience is questionable. For example, while a person may experience the dark feelings they experience after the recent loss of a loved one, anyone who can explain this experience cannot help but empathize with them. Again, the amount of genuine empathy the second person expresses may not be genuine at all, but rather an expression of the social cues they have managed to pick up on about the emotion. As for the person who hears the sad story of the other person's loss, his experience is not true experience at all. For me to even say this is based on my understanding of the term “experience”; in a way, simply hearing the grieving person's story can justify calling them that. Even if this other person has a real feeling of sadness towards the other, it is still only based on what they just heard. Even if this person had lost a loved one at some point in their life, their perception of it will not be entirely similar to that of anyone else, assuming they were in a similar situation to begin with. In both cases, reasoning about how one should react when told of someone else's sad news is achieved through similar past experiences, as well as understanding the appropriate social cues for expressing oneself in such a situation. While we may not have any idea what we are really thinking or why we should think a certain way, our perception of past experiences is what allows us to develop a sense of moral standards and reasoning. Even if we don't fully understand the reasoning and what we should feel, our past experiences at least teach most of us what the most acceptable social norms might be for our time. Relevance of Empiricism to Morality and Reasoning The empirical ideologies of Hume and Locke both agree that logic and morality are what people choose to make of them. What people choose to do with these abstract concepts is based solely on how they perceive the world around them, both based on their own reports and those of others. George Berkeley, another well-known philosopher of the same period, once said: “It is evident to anyone who examines the objects of human knowledge, that they are either ideas actually impressed upon the senses, or ideas perceived by them. paying attention to the passions and operations of the mind, or finally to the ideas formed with the aid of memory and imagination, combining, dividing, or scarcely representing those originally perceived in the above-mentioned ways. (Berkeley, G., 1901, p. 41) This essentially means that anyone who takes the time to evaluate all the fragments of human knowledge will find that it is all relative to those who established it in the first place. Furthermore, the creation of such knowledge had to come from a place of passion, if not repetition. The repetitive experiences we have are what lead to more developed reasoning, at least regarding the circumstances of these experiences. Memories of past experiences are what allow us to make progress, or at least what we might call it"progress". This allows us to develop our sense of reason behind where we set our moral standards, as well as deal with situations that might share some kind of relevance to our past experiences. Regarding moral standards, Hume argues that they are what we perceive them to be. The standards we set are not based on rationality, but on passion and emotion. Hume states that our preconceived notions of logic and rationality arise from our passions, which arise from our personal experiences. “Reason is and must only be the slave of the passions, and can never claim any other office than that of serving and obeying them. As this opinion may seem quite extraordinary, it may not be improper to confirm it by some other consideration." (Hume, D, 1739, p.217) He states that our reasoning is the result of the passions. Because our individual passions, our outlook on situations, and our experiences are all extraordinarily different from those of the next individual, reasoning in and of itself can be seen as subjective to the point of being arbitrary. Reasoning and ideas, although they can be used synonymously, are two concepts independent of each other. However, this does not mean that the reasoning itself occurs arbitrarily; it must first be preceded by ideas. These ideas are acquired by experimenting with new concepts, especially during childhood. While this may be a vague explanation of how/if we develop a sense of reason, the number of potential experiences one could have over the course of one's life is countless. What we experience is done in the way we choose, for passion about our perceptions is how we develop our sense of reason. That said, we can choose how we perceive and react to certain situations. Locke says that it is only when we are adults that we begin to apply these ideas to our self-awareness. (Locke, J, 1690, Book II, p.19) Even then, some of us may be unable to piece together the experiences and information we have gained over the years. While reasoning and simply having ideas have two separate meanings, Locke argues that having ideas simply means perceiving. (ibid., p. 20) Our ability to perceive begins before we are even aware of it. From the moment we are born, all our senses are intact, regardless of how underdeveloped they may be. As such, it can be said that we begin to develop ideas before we can make sense of them. For some of us, this continues into adulthood, only with a more developed sense of perception. Perception is also a matter of subjectivity and can never be considered “right” or “wrong”. Even when we believe we hold all the keys to knowledge of life's unanswered dilemmas, we cannot even begin to fathom the infinite number of perspectives that exist, even when those perspectives concern the most mundane matters. Furthermore, perception comes with experience, and repetitive experience can lead to a change in our perception over time. (ibid, p. 22) Therefore, regardless of our current perception of the world around us and our own identity, that perception is a unique perspective that is truly only suited to our ideals and understandings. How Experience Shapes Identity Our knowledge and perception of the world around us is what allows us to form our sense of self. As we age, how we choose to think and react to everyday situations is what will ultimately define who we are as people. This is according to my personal belief, which coincides with Locke's perspective.(ibid, p. 115) As we gain more experience in life, we also give others the opportunity to form their own opinions about us. It is very rare for someone to be unanimously liked or disliked by everyone they meet. As such, the opinions of multiple people also shape our identity to some extent. (Hume, D., 1739, p. 41) Whether or not we choose to let this determine whether we identify in the same way is entirely up to us. According to Hume (ibid, p. 41), what we perceive of ourselves is irrelevant to how our identity can truly be defined. Because it is something that is constantly changing within us and the people around us, there are too many different perceptions of what one's identity is for it to matter. This does not mean that the concept is stagnant and therefore never changes or evolves. It simply means that, due to the multiple perceptions of ourselves that we will have throughout our lives, as well as the perceptions of others, the idea is too complex to designate to ourselves at any given time. Locke & Hume on identity “…If I know what I am thinking then I must be a self, but to know that I am a self, I must know what I am thinking.” (Balibar, E., 2014, p. 46) This statement recognizes that we as people can be considered as such (“self”) because of our consciousness. Because we are thinking, we exist. For our existence to have substance, however, we must have the sense of reasoning and knowledge that we have acquired throughout life, discussed above. Because our perceptions are altered in different ways in different circumstances, no one will have the exact same sense of identity as anyone else, no matter how similar two individuals may seem. How similar they may seem is also a matter of subjective perception. Because of the subjective nature of personal identity, Hume is skeptical about its uniqueness. Because identity cannot be defined as one thing, there are too many possible perceptions about an individual's identity for it to have any concrete, singular meaning. Of course its meaning would only apply to specific individuals, hence the definition of identity. Even then, its meaning would vary greatly among the countless people who have encountered such a person. No one knows the full story of why someone is the way they are, and the qualities that define a person are almost certain to change over time. Furthermore, said person's perceptions of others may also change, while for some they do not. It is with this logic that Hume makes his statement regarding the concept of identity. Locke had a similar notion regarding the idea of ​​personal identity. However, he considered it something that was more a matter of perception. Having worked for the British parliament and judicial systems of his time, one might correctly assume that Locke thought more in terms of practicality. To determine the true definition of identity, Locke first learned that he must distinguish between all living and inanimate things. (Uzgalis, W., 2001) He knew that all atoms have a distinct identity and that it is an identity that never changes. In this respect, the identity of an atom or other object is simply stagnant and constant in itself; it has no substance or noteworthy characteristics that give it an identity outside of what it is in its unique form. Animals, on the other hand, can all be identified by what they are and the functions they perform. A cow moos, produces milk to drink, and generally has similar physical characteristics to most cows. Simply by looking at this creature, most people would agree that such an animal is, in fact, a cow. Even if it is a species among thecountless animals that don't have the ability to think critically or feel emotions like us, that doesn't mean all other animals are cows. All animals, including humans, have distinct characteristics that define their identity. To some extent, it could even be argued that they possess a certain degree of personality. It is this aspect in which human identity is most clearly identified. According to Locke's works, the identity of something becomes as complex as the identified being allows itself to become. Locke's Perspective of IdentityWhen it comes to people's identity, it cannot be defined by their materialistic or physical substance. The characteristics that define a person for who they are is what gives them their identity. Since this perception is based on ideas, which are the product of years of experience, suffice it to say that one's identity is subject to change. While this may be true for most individuals, there are some characteristics that remain in them from the moment of conception. Although a person's methods of reasoning, acting, and perceiving the world may change as they gain more knowledge and experience, there are defining characteristics that will always be part of the foundation of someone's identity. If a person were to have multiple personalities of completely different people over the course of their life, they would display noticeably different traits, thus indicating that they are inhuman or have a severe personality disorder. Locke was also a very spiritual man, he believed that there was a very clear distinction between souls and people. He believed that our souls are what allow us to think and that they are the epitome of our consciousness, thus significantly shaping our identity as individuals. To be able to perceive any emotion – pain, sadness, joy, etc. – conscience is necessary, which only the soul is capable of using for its own purposes. (Locke, J., 1690, Book II, p. 20) He also believes that, despite man's tendency to sometimes act unconsciously, there is something more than his own perception of personal identity and the conscious actions that should determine who he really is. He also believes that for a man to truly possess an identity, there are certain levels of responsibility that he must acknowledge. He uses a drunk man as an example to convey his point. (ibid, p. 119) Even though they might be the same person, the drunkard's level of consciousness is more intact when he is sober. Even though he may have committed offensive acts while in an unconscious state, he chose to put himself in such a state. As such, the actions he committed while drunk must be held against him as a person. Locke believed that a person's identity consists of the perception that his peers have of him, and that legal aspects should also determine his identity. Despite what this man may become later in life, his actions should be held accountable to him and therefore be a determining factor of his identity. This does not mean that this man's soul remains unchanged. Later in his life, he may use his new knowledge and experience to shape his identity to conform to the very nature of his soul. Hume's Perspective and Critique of Locke's Position Hume believed that the defining characteristics of anything are based solely on how they are perceived. Of course, perceptions vary greatly from individual to individual, leading to the belief that nothing and no one has a true sense of identity. There are countless different ways one might perceive another human being or any other living creature. Since objectivity is the first step in obtaining a perception, assertions can be made.