Wednesday, September 16, 2009

You are You?

If one were to forget all of his/her past, would he/she be the same person? Optimistic people, myself included, would love to say that you are you, no matter what. However, the other part of me that wholeheartedly believes in the "nurture" side of the "nature vs nurture" debate knows that this is impossible. If who you are is just an amalgamation of all your past experiences, then you could never be the same person. On the bright side, you'd still retain key factors (sarcasm!) in determining who you are; things like your mother's smile, your father's chin, and your grandmother's left earlobe!
Of course, I do believe that because you would keep all muscle memory and reflexes, you would quickly discover if you were a pianist or a black belt or a super secret black ops spy. Just going off of the aforementioned amazing movie (that I wont even name here because everyone should have already seen it at least a dozen times), your memories do not include languages spoken or skills gained. If that is indeed true, then much that makes you you is still intact. I won't say that you still are the same person, but you would still have more of yourself than most people blogging on this subject would say.
Augustine would say that your memories define you, no matter what you have done in repentance, so if one were to lose your memories, I wonder what he would say about that. If a sinner were to lose his memories, is he still a sinner? I would say no, because losing your memory is basically a moral clean slate. No experiences, no actions, no thoughts= no responsibility, right? It would make a quite a moral conundrum if a convicted murderer were to lose his memories. I wish ol' Augie were around today. He could comfort us by telling us that the memory loss victim actually IS a sinner, and that we are ALL sinners, because we've stolen fruit, thought about stealing fruit, enjoyed fruit, thought about enjoying fruit, or had sinful feelings for fruit in general.

los-clinton.jpg

"I did not have sexual relations with that pear!"

2 comments:

Snot Head (a.k.a Kylie) said...

As far as convicted murderers go, I think they are still accountable. The family of the person he/she murdered still remembers the pain and loss. The family may even have been witness to the murder. This makes me think somewhat of the the question, "If you can't see it, does it still exist?" The murderer may not remember killing anyone, and he/she may be able to go on with their life in a happy state. It may not seem fair to lock them away, but the only adjustment I would make might be to put them in an institution instead of a prison because they still committed the act. Memory loss only wipe their slate clean. It does not erase the act from anyone else's memory. It does not erase the act from history.

Just because the beholder can no longer see it in their mind's eye does not mean it does not exist.

Thanks for the food for thought for the day. I think I will follow your blog. I really enjoy deep thought like this. Some days philosophy makes my brain hurt, but others, I crave it like a giant chocolate bar...yes I am a woman. ;o)

ProfPTJ said...

The original novel on which the film The Bourne Identity is (loosely) based is actually a surprisingly good exploration of this question. As for Augustine, though, remember that he spends a lot of time on how he must have been a sinner even when an infant, i.e. before he can remember having sinned . . .