It is worth considering: even if a cloned human is undeniably similar to the original, true individuality remains unrepeatable.

Unique Souls: The Irreplaceable Essence of Human Identity

It is worth considering: even if a cloned human is undeniably similar to the original, true individuality remains unrepeatable. At the core of human identity lies not only physical resemblance, but primarily a unique inner experience and self-awareness—components that simply cannot be duplicated.

The futuristic prospect of cloning raises profound philosophical questions: can we ever replicate the soulful content that has been shaped by centuries of experience and introspection for each of us?

The classical concept of personality, which combines essence, substance, and subject, emphasizes that a person is not merely a collection of biological characteristics, but a complex conglomerate of conscious experience and the capacity for self-expression. A strong inner world, elusive soulful nature, and unique perception are what make each of us one of a kind. Even if cloning ensures physical identity, the profound self-identity remains singular and irreplaceable.

In the end, regardless of the technical perfection of cloning, human uniqueness is manifested precisely through the capacity for self-awareness and personal expression, making it impossible to fully replicate the individual experience. This fact reminds us of the undeniable value of our soul—a value that no machine or technology can recreate.

Will a cloned human remain identical to the original, or will its essence and soulful content change?

According to the sources presented, a cloned human, despite the possibility of physical identity with the original, cannot be considered identical in the full sense, because the concept of identity in a person is tied to self-identity—a unique inner experience and self-awareness. It is noted:

"Two identical objects are possible, but not two identical humans, and the idea of cloning, if applied to us personally, evokes a profound sense of puzzlement, disgust, even horror. Therefore, in the realm of objects, identity is generally not the same as self-identity. It may denote the identity of an object to itself or to another object; whereas for a person, identity can only be self-identity." (source: link txt)

Furthermore, the classical model of a human, described as "an individual substance of a rational nature" and viewed as a set of essence, substance, and subject, emphasizes each person’s uniqueness precisely in their capacity for self-awareness and self-expression. This indicates that even if both individuals appear identical on the outside after cloning, their soulful and inner content, their subjective experience, will remain unique:

"Individual substance of a rational nature. Later, the concept of the subject (thinking subject, subject of cognition) was added here, and a complete construct of a person emerged in an impenetrable philosophical armor: the classic European human of Aristotle-Boethius-Descartes is essence, substance, and subject." (source: link txt)

Thus, a cloned human will not be identical to the original in the profound sense: its unique self-awareness and inner world, which constitute the essence of personality, remain unrepeatable despite outward similarity.

Supporting citation(s):
"Two identical objects are possible, but not two identical humans... for a person, identity can be only self-identity." (source: link txt)
"Individual substance of a rational nature... the classic European human of Aristotle-Boethius-Descartes is essence, substance, and subject." (source: link txt)