kennethamy;101127 wrote:

Peristence through change is an intelligible concept to me. What we can then say is the identity remains the very same (constant throughout life). if we equate it with that which persists within us. The only thing (if it be a thing) that I can see as persisting, is life. To equate identity with unchanging persistence I would have to then say identity is synonymous with that thing that gives, or that is life. Is this thing that gives life, spirit? Or is it something physical? Whichever it is, it would then be identitical to identity, if we look at identity as being persistent, and unchanging. So we remain the same identity, but our character is not the same.

I suppose then it is a question of semantics or linguistics. What do we really mean by identity? Life? Character?

The subject can become confusing if we jumble our definitions.

But I can agree with the idea of Identity persisting ... remaining the same; and allow for the character that goes with this identity as that which undergoes change. But we still haven't gotten to the root of what Identity is, have we? This is why it always arises as a subject of controversy and debate in philosophy.

Leibniz's law of identity (which is found in logic books) is:

X and Y are identical if and only if every property of Y is a property of X, and every property of X is a property of Y. So, X and Y are identical if and only if they have the same properties.

Shostakovich;101129 wrote:

Leibniz's law of identity (which is found in logic books) is:

X and Y are identical if and only if every property of Y is a property of X, and every property of X is a property of Y. So, X and Y are identical if and only if they have the same properties.

I'll have to do some study into this. Didn't realize he had a law of identity.

kennethamy;101153 wrote:

I'll have to do some study into this. Didn't realize he had a law of identity.

Sure. Google it (or Bing it). There is a good article in SEP.

---------- Post added 11-02-2009 at 08:39 AM ----------

Subjectivity9;101208 wrote:

Shostakovich,

It seems to me that if we want to find out what is our identity, (if we hold on to a premise that identity persists at least from birth to death), what we then have to do is eliminate, quite systematically, what in fact seems to change.

Holding on our opinions of what identity is, without investigation into it, is not wisdom; rather it is IMO sheer stubbornness.

The Hindus does this very investagation with a practice called Neti/Neti (AKA Not this/Not this). In other words, with this litmus test (AKA does it come and does it go) they are able to eliminate one by one those things and thoughts that do not fit the criterion of being constant, or not changing, and by this come to see what persists as our actual identity. If identity in fact exists; it probably wouldn't be some fantasy that we stubbornly refuse to let go of.

However, if identity (as we commonly think of it) remains in constant flux and hold onto nothing at all, there must be something that stands behind it and calls itself "Me."

S9

One famous theory of personal identity was John Locke's. He argued that memory was personal identity. But he never said anything about amnesia. People interested in the issue of personal identity should read up on it. You cannot just make it up. There is a good article in SEP.

I always have to wonder about people who say that we can't just "make things up" and should "check the books for what other people have said about anything including identity, before I dare to say what I have found to be to case in my life."

This just begs the question, doesn't it? Who did John Lock read, before he dared to open his mouth? This same reading of others going back and back and even further backwards, until sooner or later you are going to come to some brave soul that simply looked for himself and started the whole ball rolling.

How about something original?

Knowledge can be direct knowledge. Knowledge is not just the accumulation of other peoples thoughts either borrowed or stolen.

I personally wouldn't buy anyone's definition of identity, not even Locke's, if I could not look directly at identity and witness personally what he saw for myself.

I can buy that in good part, our ego identity is based upon our memory. So loose your memory and "Poof," there goes your personal story. But even without a lick of memory, most people know that they are their "Me." So maybe it is the "Me" (feeling?) that persists?

They say that infants are born feeling "Oceanic" or that everything inthe world is their "Me." We will have to let that little piece of wisdom stand as an unknown, as most of us cannot remember feeling that way. But, I can tell you this, that an amnesiac does not feel "Oceanic." Neither does someone with advanced Alzheimer's disease. So what is this "Me" that persists behind our ego identity's story line?

S9

I did not say that you should borrow or steal the thoughts of others. Only that you should read others so that you can make sure that you are not reinventing the wheel, and that you should use the thoughts of others as a springboard for you own. And, of course, it might always be that the thoughts of others turn out to be true. We should not forget that.

Isaac Newton, the great genius said, "If I have seen further than others, t is only because I stand on the shoulders of giants". Standing on the shoulders of giants does not mean either that you are borrowing their thoughts, or stealing them. But you are using them.

The giant I stand on is Jose Ortega y Gasset.

However, the giants aren't doing too well these days!

Well, he may not be so tall as you believe he is.

Have you read any of his works?

Long time ago. "Revolt of the Masses". Not my type.

What or who is your type?

Bertrand Russell, G.E. Moore, Wittgenstein.