CONCEPT HARD TO UNDERSTAND….

The article "Personal Identity" by Derek Parfit is a philosophical exploration of the concept of personal identity over time. In the article, Parfit challenges traditional views of personal identity, such as the idea that a person's identity is determined by their physical or psychological continuity, and presents a reductionist view of personal identity. He argues that what is important is not personal identity per se, but rather the connectedness of our experiences and our relationships with others. This leads him to conclude that moral considerations should be based on the value of a person's experiences, rather than on the person as a whole.

The first question that comes to mind is naturally "who am I?

Another concept is continuity. Reading has come across two theories, one is physical continuity and the other is psychological continuity

You are the same person when you are physically similar over an infinitely cut period of time. However, this theory is often questioned, for example, if A's brain is moved to B's body, and A has abandoned the body he has been using since he was born, can A still be considered alive? A strong proponent of physical continuity would deny it, but I believe that many people would feel that A is still alive, albeit in a completely different body than before.

A person's personal identity can only continue if there is a sense of it.

The article states that If a person does not remember a certain experience from the past, then he does not have that experience. ( WHY) Then, it is natural to think: if the memory is interrupted, or if one simply forgets an experience (isn't that often the case in life?) So, is it possible that I am not me anymore?