Let's Get Way Too Philosophical

After watching the first part of Memento today, I found myself returning to some of the ideas discussed in my philosophy class last year. A large part of one particular unit was spent on the question of what exactly a "self" is, and how one knows that one is the same self from moment to moment, under different conditions. One philosopher, David Hume, argued that there was no such thing as a self, that humans were only "bundles of perception"-- that is, only beings who exist in a state of constant flux, being bombarded with sensory inputs. Another philosopher, Thomas Reid, said that one's memory is evidence of one's existence in the past, but it is not memory that constitutes one's existence, but rather the "idea" of oneself. Yeah, it took me a while to get it, too. Anyway, the ideas of these two philosophers seemed fairly applicable to Leonard. Because he has no short-term memory, his most immediate experiences are those of physical sensations. For example, when he finds himself in an unfamiliar place with no idea how he ended up there, he must take stock of what he sees/hears/touches/etc. in order to ground himself. But his sensations do not constitute Leonard as a self. Nor does his memory or lack thereof. Even if Leonard can't put together a continuous series of events to inform himself of his personal history, he still has a very strong idea of who he is, which he has cultivated through routine and his obsession with finding his wife's killer. Therefore, the fact that Leonard can't form new memories does not prevent him from being or developing as a self.