I defend the claim that bodily continuity is the primary criterion of personal identity by arguing there is an important sense in which it (unlike rival criteria) is a necessary condition of such identity. This claim is shown to be misunderstood in recent discussions because of a confusion of it with the claim that bodily continuity is a sufficient condition of personal identity. In the course of my argument, I criticize williams, Shoemaker, Puccetti, Quinton, Miri, And others.

Traditionally, this puzzle has been solved in various ways. Aristotle, for example, distinguished between “accidental” and “essential” changes. Accidental changes are ones that don't result in a change in an objects' identity after the change, such as when a house is painted, or one's hair turns gray, etc. Aristotle thought of these as changes in the accidental properties of a thing. Essential changes, by contrast, are those which don't preserve the identity of the object when it changes, such as when (...) a house burns to the ground and becomes ashes, or when someone dies. Armed with these distinctions, Aristotle would then say that, in the case of accidental changes, (1) and (2) are both false—a changing thing can really change one of its “accidental properties” and yet literally remain one and the same thing before and after the change. (shrink)

Two closely related issues are addressed in this thesis. The first of these issues is whether Lockean criteria can withstand criticisms based on cases such as Wiggins' brain bisection case. The problem here is that the memory relation, or in general any relation of psychological continuity, seems to be a many-one relation and hence not suitable as a criterion of identity for persons. The second issue involves the question of what we ought to say about such cases. The problem here (...) is that, intuitively, psychological continuity seems to be a very good criterion of personal identity. When one person is psychologically continuous with a future person, we want to say that the one person has survived--as that future person. ;Several contemporary philosophers have addressed themselves to these issues. In Chapter I of the thesis, I consider the theory of identity suggested by Baruch Brody. He rejects Lockean criteria, and instead uses his own perfectly general theory as a criterion of identity. I argue that the theory he suggests is of limited value, and that the arguments he provides against Lockean criteria are question-begging. In Chapter II, I develop a specific Lockean criterion; in Chapter III, I consider and finally reject particular arguments against this criterion which are based on the brain bisection cases. In this chapter, I consider work by David Wiggins, Bernard Williams, and Roland Puccetti. In Chapter IV, I turn to the defense of Lockean criteria suggested by John Perry and David Lewis. Finally, in Chapter V, I develop my own views on the brain bisection case, and concluding that Lockean criteria of a certain sort remain defensible. (shrink)