Individuation, Identity, and Resurrection in Thomas Jackson and John Locke
Thompson (Jon W.)
Source: American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 95, Issue 2, Spring 2021; Pages 165-194.
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsBooks / Papers Citing this PaperNotes Citing this PaperText Colour-ConventionsDisclaimer


Author's Abstract


Contents
    Introduction
  1. The background: the resurrection of the same body in Late Scholasticism
  2. Thomas Jackson’s defence of resurrection
    → 2.2 The sceptical rebuttal: Continuous life as principle of individuation
  3. Locke’s view of the individuation of living bodies as (implicit) criticism of resurrection
  4. Jackson and Locke: Historical influence?
  5. Matter as principle of individuation?
  6. Conclusions
    Bibliography:

Author’s Conclusions

Notes
  1. As this paper is a discussion of Locke’s views, see my Note on Locke6, which will need updating in the light of this Paper and my comments thereon.
  2. For the primary text of Locke, see "Locke (John) - Of Identity and Diversity".
  3. There were doubts in Locke’s day about his Christian orthodoxy (and some other luminaries). They were accused of being Socinians7, though this became a general term of abuse.
  4. Socinians denied the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, and Udo Thiel8 thinks this influenced Locke’s account of PID. Neither I nor the author wish to pursue the matter further.
  5. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body was more central to Locke’s concerns, and it’s this matter that is pursued in this essay.
  6. Thompson cites "Boeker (Ruth) - Locke on Personal Identity: A Response to the Problems of His Predecessors" as ‘insightful’ but says her analysis doesn’t sufficiently focus on the then current doctrine of the resurrection of the same body.
  7. We’re referred to9 "Ayers (Michael R.) - Personal Identity Before the Essay", p. 256, as supporting the importance of the resurrection in Locke’s account of PID.
  8. Diachronic individuation: what makes an individual identified at different times the same (or different). Locke thinks of Identity as diachronic but individuation as synchronic. We’re referred to Antonia Fitzpatrick for the alternative view (equating Identity and individuation). Also to "Furth (Montgomery) - Transtemporal Stability in Aristotelian Substances", which I’ve not had time to read – though I read "Code (Alan) - What Is It To Be An Individual?" which is a response to it. There are interesting discussions on individuation, persistence, (resistance to) metamorphosis10 and the role of Matter11 in persistence. I should follow this up.
  9. Locke is responding to the late Scholastics, who claimed that resurrection saw the return of ‘the same numerical body’, a reassembly of ‘the same particles’. There are problems with this idea, so, Locke makes a sharp distinction between the identity of the Person12 and the identity of the Body13 as a collection of particles.
  10. Locke does distinguish between ‘masses of matter’ and Organisms14 (in the case of human beings his term is ‘Men’) – which are individuated by their Lives15. Despite organisms having different – and more tolerant – persistence conditions to those of ‘masses of matter’, Locke thinks that sameness of Consciousness16 is the only sure determinant of resurrection (into another body, if necessary). This puts him at odds with Bishop Stillingfleet17. He thinks that resurrection of ‘numerically the same living body’ is impossible18.
  11. Locke is explicit that the resurrection is central to his concerns in the 2nd Edition of the Essay. Thompson quotes from Section 1519, and also cites Sections 2120 and 2621 but notes that Locke changes “Resurrection of the Body after death” to “Resurrection of the Dead” in the 4th Edition22.
  12. … to be continued


Bibliography23


In-Page Footnotes

Footnote 7: Footnote 8: Footnote 9: Footnote 17: Footnote 18: Footnote 22: Footnote 23:

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)



© Theo Todman, June 2007 - March 2026. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page