Identity

@Dexter78,

Dexter78,

With this understanding when we consider the concept of personal identity I think it can be nothing but a swirl of activities,of interelated processes,and utterly impersonal.Sounds like an oxy moron does not,an impersonal identity.This impersonal identity,or as I stated earlier,this highly functional illusion, has to be the biological function of a multicellular community.I would suspect that even a singular cell has a sense of its own being,at least initially,before it gives its sense of self up, to be part of one organic community.

If we use the human social community to try and draw analogies between it and our own identity,what if anything can we conclude,does a social communtiy have identity outside the existence and/or consciousness of its component parts.Society is something we tend to believe we are part of.The some total of our cooperations [relatedness]is our sense of community. With the physcial world I don't think it can be said that a community is aware of an identity which is not sumed up as a collective of its individuals.

I recall a bit of wisdom which stated,that there is no such thing as large or small but only by comparison.This comparison is also necessary I think in drawing or coming to the conclusion of identity,it must be relative,for only that which is relative can exist,even if it is as a simply impression, or as an illusion.So,would it be to much of a stretch of the imagination to assume the objects which constitute the form of our impressions,by means of relational comparisons/associations to be,the process of identity formation.I am going back to my room now. Wink

"The mind is a secondary organ in serves to the body." The Late Joseph
Campbell

All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The
truth is outside of all fixed patterns.
Lee, Bruce -

@boagie,

Quote:

I recall a bit of wisdom which stated,that there is no such thing as large or small but only by comparison.This comparison is also necessary I think in drawing or coming to the conclusion of identity,it must be relative,for only that which is relative can exist,even if it is as a simply impression, or as an illusion

I tend to agree with this. If there were a person who never had any contact with other people, it seems unlikley that they could begin to define themselves as kind, cruel, honest, caring, etc. since the application of these terms is based upon a relative societal definition. Such a person may have the most undiluted form of identity though.

@Dexter78,

Dexter78 wrote:

I tend to agree with this. If there were a person who never had any contact with other people, it seems unlikley that they could begin to define themselves as kind, cruel, honest, caring, etc. since the application of these terms is based upon a relative societal definition. Such a person may have the most undiluted form of identity though.

That's not wisdom. It is a fact. A small elephant is still a large animal, and a large mouse is still a small animal. Those are relative terms. But although it is true that a person is honest or cruel only in relation to other people because he has to have other people to be honest with, or cruel to, that doesn't mean that a person who never (say) steals or lies is only relatively honest. He is absolutely honest, because that is what honesty is. And a person who deliberately torment someone is not relatively cruel (relatively to what?). He is absolutely cruel. The fact that a person can be honest or cruel only in relation to other people, does not mean that "honesty" and "cruelty" are relative terms the way that "large" and "small" are relative terms. Another way of putting it is that "cruel" and "honest" are not comparative terms, but "small" and "large" are comparative terms.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy,

I am not sure I am understanding you,there is no large or small without comparison,or is that what you too are saying? Honesty has to be relative to the possiablity of dishonesty,indeed they are interdependent for their meanings,thus supplying the means of comparison.Nothing can be considered in isolation,for that is not a condition for existence.It seems to me you are useing the term,absolute,in just such an isolated manner,which of course is meaningless.You might consider as a bases of reality in general,that all meaning whatsoever is relational,knowledge is the understanding of all things relative to one another and you.You express a thinking of a black and white nature here,meaning that black and white are examples of absolutes.Yes,honesty and cruelty are comparative terms with their negatives,otherwise they would be utterly meaningless terms.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

kennethamy,

I am not sure I am understanding you,there is no large or small without comparison,or is that what you too are saying? Honesty has to be relative to the possiablity of dishonesty,indeed they are interdependent for their meanings,thus supplying the means of comparison.Nothing can be considered in isolation,for that is not a condition for existence.It seems to me you are useing the term,absolute,in just such an isolated manner,which of course is meaningless.You might consider as a bases of reality in general,that all meaning whatsoever is relational,knowledge is the understanding of all things relative to one another and you.You express a thinking of a black and white nature here,meaning that black and white are examples of absolutes.Yes,honesty and cruelty are comparative terms with their negatives,otherwise they would be utterly meaningless terms.

"Large" and "small" are relative terms. A large X may be a small Y. It depends on what the X and the Y are. (I gave the example that a small elephant may be a large animal. Small for an elephant, but large for an animal.

But a man who never steals or lies is just an honest man. He isn't honest for an X, but not honest for a Y. He is not relatively honest. What would he be relatively honest for? Compared with what? Of course, most terms have negations, but that doesn't matter. And honest man is, of course, not a dishonest man. But an honest man is not honest relative to a dishonest man, in the way that (say) an elephant is large relative to a mouse, but not large relative to (say) a mountain. An honest man is just not a dishonest man, just as a dishonest man is just not an honest man. They are negations of each other. The elephant is not a negation of a mouse, or a negation of a mountain.

@boagie,

kennethamy,

If you were not on the job with comparisons there would be no way to discern a mouse is small relative to a large elephant,something is small only in relation to something else,With that something taken by itself,the question simply does not arise.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

kennethamy,

If you were not one the job with comparisons there would be no way to discern a mouse is small relative to a large elephant,something is small only in relation to something else,With that something taken by itself, the question simply does not arise.

I am sorry. I don't understand what you wrote. But I pointed out that although a small (say baby) elephant is small relative to the category of elephants, it is large relative to the category of animals. But while a mouse might be large relative to the category of mice, it is small relative to the category of animals. So a mouse might be both large and small at the same time. But that is no contradiction, since "large" and "small" are relative terms.

But "honest" is not a relative term, although of course, honesty may be a matter of degree. Some people may be more honest than other people, but it is only in relation to the same category which is that of honest people.

There are two categories involved with "small" and "large" in the example above. Only one category involved with "honest".

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

I am sorry. I don't understand what you wrote. But I pointed out that although a small (say baby) elephant is small relative to the category of elephants, it is large relative to the category of animals. But while a mouse might be large relative to the category of mice, it is small relative to the category of animals. So a mouse might be both large and small at the same time. But that is no contradiction, since "large" and "small" are relative terms."

kennethamy,

It is all contradiction to the original statement which is,"There is no such thing as large or small but only by comparison." Everything above is about relations and comparing those relations,as a mouse is huge compared to a flea,but not compared it is neither large or small,it is just the way it is.

"But "honest" is not a relative term, although of course, honesty may be a matter of degree. Some people may be more honest than other people, but it is only in relation to the same category which is that of honest people."

Honesty is relative to dishonesty, if it were not it would mean nothing.Honest people are defined as such because there are dishonesty people.If some people are more honest than other people,it must mean that some other people are a little dishonest,people uncompared would be neither honest nor dishonest they would be just as they are,people.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
I am sorry. I don't understand what you wrote. But I pointed out that although a small (say baby) elephant is small relative to the category of elephants, it is large relative to the category of animals. But while a mouse might be large relative to the category of mice, it is small relative to the category of animals. So a mouse might be both large and small at the same time. But that is no contradiction, since "large" and "small" are relative terms."

kennethamy,

It is all contradiction to the original statement which is,"There is no such thing as large or small but only by comparison." Everything above is about relations and comparing those relations,as a mouse is huge compared to a flea,but not compared it is neither large or small,it is just the way it is.

"But "honest" is not a relative term, although of course, honesty may be a matter of degree. Some people may be more honest than other people, but it is only in relation to the same category which is that of honest people."

Honesty is relative to dishonesty, if it were not it would mean nothing.Honest people are defined as such because there are dishonesty people.If some people are more honest than other people,it must mean that some other people are a little dishonest,people uncompared would be neither honest nor dishonest they would be just as they are,people.

But every term is relative to it negation. "Small" is then relative to "not small", and "large" relative to "not large". But there is a further relation that "small" and "large" have which is relative to their comparison class, which "honest" does not have. So, there is still a distinction between the terms "small" and "large" on the one hand, and the term, "honest" on the other hand. After all, as I pointed out, to say of the same thing that it is both small and large is not a contradiction as long as the comparison class is specified, whereas to say of someone that he is both honest and dishonest is a contradiction (unless you mean in different aspects, or he is in between the two).

@kennethamy,

Just a few thoughts on personal identity [your input would be most appreciated].

Whatever the center of life is called,the self,whatever,it seems to matter little what road it travels, it will claim the experience of that road traveled as its personal identity,you are then your experience good,bad or indifferent.In this sense the truth of the saying,"Subject And Object Stand Or Fall Together",is true,for it is the self and the road you travel which is you.The self [personal identity] only BECOMES at that point at which it experiences object.If at some point the road you travel is drastically changed,it might prove stressful for a time,but this too would be experienced as you,as personal identity.

The self it would seem brings all it experiences together,this potential for gathering seems to be the essence of being,whether it is a neighbourhood or ones personal identity.Identity then represents any number of things in association with each other and ones self,and only when the self is in contact with what it can experience is it said to have a personal identity.

The only way to take away a individuals personal identity is though sensory deprivation, for whatever little information gets though the self/consciousness will gather it and group it around itself as personal identity-----------------maybe? Your thoughts?

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hi everyone!

Heraclitus once said,"You can never step into the same river twice." He was wrong.What was his error,or my delusion.What might the river have to say about this? If you're thinking within the box,think about how you got there.

The same river, or the same location?
The River changes with each moment, as the water from the mountains wash away and dilute everything in it. So you may step into the same spot in the river, but the water is not the same, nor are the fish, the algae, or the mosquitoes. (etc.)

Personally I think he was referring to the moment, and only using the river as a metaphor.
You can step backwards to where you just were a moment ago, but everything around you has changed, since that moment is lost.

He wasn't wrong, and neither are you.
But I don't think you're going to find too many people on this site that think inside the box, so to speak.

Sorry if what I just stated was already covered, I admit I didn't read the whole thread, just the OP.
I'll read the thread now, lol...I just had a thought and needed to express it before I lost my train of thought. It's been a long day. :rolleyes:

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hi everyone!

Heraclitus once said,"You can never step into the same river twice." He was wrong.What was his error,or my delusion.What might the river have to say about this? If you're thinking within the box,think about how you got there.

He confused the river (which is a geographical location) with the water which flows through the river. That much should be obvious.

@kennethamy,

Hi Everybody, Smile

This business of the river ever changing, buy analogy the self and/or identity is also ever changing. So even with the knowledge that both the individual and his/her context is ever changing, the individual comes up with the idea his indentity is unchanging, his/her impression of his/her identity remains largely the same dispite all things being in constant change. He is indeed the same organism as another consciousness would identify. There must be a significant degree of constancy maintained or changes must be of a fine granular nature which allows the individual to incorporate, thus imperceptably changing of the concept of self, with such slow largely imperceptable changes, the constancy of identity is probably due to lack of perception rather than consciousness.This is even truer if the organism is considered a unity of organismenvironment, and involves the same lack of perception of the changing physical world.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hi all,
Lets expand the topic somewhat,for instance,I would maintain that personal identity is a highly functional illusion.

What makes you think that?

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

What makes you think that?

Arjen,

To begin with we are a multicellular organism, a community of organisms you might say. Second we come into this world without an identity and only gain identity from our environment, context defines to some degree. I am also aware that many many people consider themselves, their identity to be the journey they are in process of completeting. Most people would say they are the life they have lived, that sounds very much to me as confirming that context defines. It is a very practical function of the biological community that they establish the functional illusion of a singular identity, the only problem is, it has work so well that we forget that the mind is in serves to the body not the other way around. So, not only is the idea of the singularity of the individual a misrepresentation, a functional illusion, so to is the idea that the body is in serves to the mind, properly or the reality is that the mind is in serves to the community of the body. So, Arjen, get off that elephant and tell me what you think. Very Happy

@boagie,

That is what I thought... It struck me immediately when I read it. It is hard to put into words for me, so I'll just use one of your examples:

I would say that the life I am living is what seperates me from myself.

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

That is what I thought... It struck me immediately when I read it. It is hard to put into words for me, so I'll just use one of your examples:

I would say that the life I am living is what seperates me from myself.

Arjen,

I think I know what you are inferring but perhaps not. Often people have been forced for one reason or another to fellow a given path of sucess which is not truely their calling. In other words if you are doing what you are doing just for the money, then in some sense you have lost your life, and the life you are living is not an authentic life, it is not a life directed from the heart. Is that on the money?

@boagie,

It is definately something a lot like what I am trying to describe. However, I am pointing to a more fundamental truth. In my opinion there is a big difference between what/who I am and what I have lived through. I am not a native english speaker, so I am not sure if the words I am about tu use will make any sense in english, for they are a litteral translation (from Dutch btw).

What I mean is that there is that which I am and there is that which is formed by my standing place. This standing place is not just a geaographica location, but also a location in time and a location in experience.Perhaps I am leaving out some more locations, but I suppose I made my point. In my opinion there is a difference in myself (and in everybody/everything) between what it really is and what it has been formed into. It therefore is not that which I really am that is changing, but the expression of myself that does so.

I hope I am making sense to you.

@Arjen,

Arjen,

I believe I am understanding what you say, it is a more profound problem than I have been considering. It is a really difficult problem of enstrangement and ailenation, it really does sounds like a problem you would need help with. From the sound of it, it is not a pleasant place to be, I cannot imagine being totally enstranged.

@boagie,

Are saying that you deny the existance of this phenomenon and think that this is not a thing that many (all?) humans are coping with?

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know