Part One: Area of Philosophy
The procedure of putting my brain inside my male friend's body is a procedure I will never in a million years even think would be possible. But here we are. This situation explores the question of "Who am I?"; a question of identity closely connected to a question of "What am I?" which deals with the metaphysical portion of philosophy. However, the "Who am I?" question really targets personal identity. I will be delving into whether the final result of this procedure will be a matter of mind, body, soul, or storage of experiences. It may even be a mixture of some or all of these. My two friends Plato and David Hume will help find out what makes me me.
Part Two: Argument Analysis
Plato's ultimate belief is that our soul, or psyche, is our essence. It is completely separate from the body and it will never fade. Plato's dualistic tendencies allow him to divide reality between a material world and a world of ideal forms. Humans also display this division. Like that of the world, we are made from two sorts of reality: material bodies, and non-material psyches. It is important to note Plato's view that a psyche without a body would still be human. However, a body without a psyche would be nothing more than a block of matter, which might "appear" to human but in "reality" would not be human. Plato elaborates his concept of the soul in his later dialogues, in particular promoting this idea of a three-part soul constituted by Reason, Appetite, and Spirit. He illustrates this by drawing up a metaphor that portrays a man on a chariot in charge of two powerful winged horses. A noble horse represents Spirit, a wild horse represents Appetite, and the charioteer represents Reason. Reason is the part of us that has the power to think, analyze, looks ahead, weighs options, and determine what is best and truest overall. This part of the soul is represented by Plato as a chariot driver, who has the power to keep the two horses working together to pull the soul through life. According to Plato, a life that does not put reason in charge is fated to unhappiness. The Appetites account for our many desires for various pleasures, comforts, physical satisfactions, and bodily ease. There are so many of these appetites that Plato does not bother to list them, but he does note that they can often be in conflict even with each other. This element of the soul is represented by Plato as an ugly black horse which tries to veer the Psyche to the left. Lastly, the Spirit is the part of us that loves to face and overcome great challenges, the part that can steel itself to adversity, and the part that loves victory, winning, challenge, and honor. It is considered to be the hot-blooded part; the part that gets angry when it perceives an injustice being done. This element of the soul is represented by Plato as a noble white horse which tries to pull the Psyche to the right. Overall, Plato believed that true happiness can only be reached by people who constantly make sure their Reason has full control over their Spirits and Appetites. In relation to the procedure done between my friend and I, Plato would argue that my soul, since it is non-material, it cannot die with my material body. It must continue on to exist in some non-material manner.
David Hume on the other hand has more radical views of the self. Hume simply believes the self is a changing bundle of perceptions. Basically, what he is trying to say is that the "self" is a complex idea formed from experience. Hume argues that memories and experiences are made up of impressions and ideas. Through the process of soul-searching, we discover that there is no essential self. We have no impression of a permanent unchanging self. Even when we actively search for the self, Hume contests that we simply cannot find it. All of our experiences are perceptions; none of these perceptions are similar to a unified and permanent self-identity that exists over time. My life's experiences and my memories of my life's experiences are not things that "I" possess. What happens when we sleep or die? Hume points out that when we are not experiencing our perceptions (i.e. sleep or death) there is no reason to suppose that our self exists in any form. When our body dies, and all sensations deteriorate, it does not make sense to believe that our self continues to exist in some form. Death finalizes life. The self can be nothing more than the sense impressions I have each moment, of my body, my world, and of others, blended together with the memories I have of past impressions of body, world and others. Instead, Hume goes on to propose that at each moment I am a slightly different person, with a slightly different sense of myself. Therefore, if Hume were to give us his piece of mind on the procedure, he would say that who I was five minutes ago will be different to who I will be five years from now. This is due to the many different experiences we go through in life. All of us go through dissimilar situations and we may go through the same ones at one point, however, this one situation can change us all differently.
Part Three: Argument Evaluation
Plato makes some valid arguments regarding his view on the self. The focal point of his argument relies heavily on the psyche; it is the center and essence for what makes us who we are. However, by detailed examination of Plato's views on the soul, it brings up several criticisms; The more his work advances, there becomes more room for confusion. The soul begins as a brilliant and indefinite object. He continues to explain that the soul becomes a complex triple entity that is trapped in the material body, yet it still longs to enter the world of the forms. Plato reveals a contradictory and confusing thought process that aims to find solutions for defects in his thinking. The idea behind a flawed entity entering the perfect world of forms is one such logical fallacy in his argument. He does this by looking for reason and justification for his conclusion, rather than forming a conclusion based his own logic.
Those who first approach Hume's ideas question some of his more radical statements, like how we have no self, or there is no such thing as cause and effect that affect our everyday lives. People often just think that Hume is incorrect with his logic, although it becomes difficult for them to prove him wrong. In addition, Hume's arguments become so influential in the academic world that people just accept his thinking simply because any argument they can think of would just be useless and Hume (if he were still alive today) would just laugh at their face. With this in mind, it's beneficial to not only consider Hume's ideas in detail, but to also bring up at least sophisticated answers to provoke Hume's arguments. One can dispute that Hume's statement about human beings not really having a sense of self are only a grouping of internal perceptions. We should not see ourselves as a collection of impressions. We should see ourselves as a whole unit. It is through conceptualization that we attain an understanding that within the self, there is an ongoing stream of thoughts and feelings. Another radical thought Hume presents is his argument that the idea behind an external world is nonexistent. In actuality, he is only complicating the visual and theoretical levels of consciousness. We should first be able to visualize the external world. Once we start thinking about what is happening then can we only comprehend that we are perceiving it, and that what we are truly seeing is independent from the thing perceived. In order for Hume to validly say that we are unreasonable for believing in an external world, he would have to prove that conceptualization itself is invalid. However, he assumes this rather than proving it.