The aim of the article is to show how mirror neurons, a recent discovery in neurology, might play a vital role in the creation of unity in our lives. This unity is a formal one. But since we all share the illusion that there is more to personal identity than only a formal unity, and that deep in ourselves the inner essence of our true self lies hidden, this same mechanism should also be able to shed some light on the (...) inescapability of this illusion. I begin by elaborating on the parallel Wittgenstein saw between the problem of the Self and the problem of mental processes. I continue by focusing on the problem of mental processes, first by looking at the philosophy-of-mind-debate where the understanding of the other is studied, then by looking at developmental psychology studies of how a child understands itself. With the help of Sartre's being-for-the-other, the conclusion will lead us to the formal unity in our lives that Wittgenstein described with his limit-concept. (shrink)

Traditionally, the question of how a person can be a unity throughout his life was answered by referring to the objective realm: the cartesian soul guaranteed our personal unity. But for Locke, the soul was considered irrelevant to the real question of personal identity, which was: how can I know that I am the same person throughout my life? For Locke that question was not answerable from an objective point of view, but only by a 'person', which for Locke meant (...) as much as 'consciousness' or the first-person perspective. For Locke, I am the same 'person', as long as I have the same consciousness. But how exactly should we understand this 'person'? No longer tied to the objective realm, does this mean that the term 'person' is totally autonomous? This is indeed what Locke's account sometimes seems to suggest. Inspired by these suggestions, people like Hume and eventually Parfit followed these very same lines of thought. By showing that these accounts in the end always entangle themselves in a version of Butler's circularity-objection, I will demonstrate that 'person' can never stand on its own but is always tied and interwoven, not with the objective realm, but with the third-person perspective - or what Locke calls 'man'. Finally I will give two reasons why Locke thought it was important to disconnect 'person' and 'man'. (shrink)