There are several reasons why a person might be skeptical of John Locke's views on personal identity. One of the main concerns is the lack of a clear definition of what it means to be the same person over time. Locke himself admits that this is a difficult issue, and that it is hard to say exactly what constitutes personal identity.
One possible approach to this problem is to consider the various ways in which we typically think about personal identity. For example, we might think of a person as being the same if they have the same memories, or if they have the same body. However, these approaches are not without their problems. For instance, if a person loses their memories, do they cease to be the same person?
Another problem with Locke's views on personal identity is that they seem to imply that a person is not the same person if their body changes in some way. For example, if a person has a heart transplant, are they still the same person? Locke's views on personal identity seem to suggest that they are not.
It's worth noting that Locke's views on personal identity were not universally accepted during his time. Some philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, disagreed with Locke's views on personal identity and argued that a person's identity is based on their physical body rather than their memories or experiences.
“If the same consciousness runs through successive instances of a particular continued existence, it will be some numerical same person: and so makes a man be himself at different times, and upon different occasions.”
Ultimately, the question of what constitutes personal identity remains a complex and contested issue. While Locke's views on the matter are still widely discussed and debated today, they continue to present challenges for philosophers and thinkers.
Author's summary: Locke's views on personal identity are still widely relevant today, but they also present significant challenges for philosophers and thinkers.