Identity

[Resha Caner]

How much of your identity would you say comes from the external (culture, community, family, profession) vs. what comes from within you?

 

[Chesterton]

I think the question's impossible to answer. The word "identity" is hard enough to define.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think the question's impossible to answer. The word "identity" is hard enough to define.

The extent to which the war-weary only give extremely guarded replies is a subject for another thread, but I do sometimes wonder how such people carry on conversations in the real world. I imagine these people going into McDonald's, placing an order, and when asked, "Do you want fries with that?" launching into a series of dialectical questions:

* I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "fries". Can you define that for me?
* Before I answer, can you tell me if you're a Deep Friedian or a Pan Friedian?
* I think you committed a categorical error when asking that question. "With" implies a mixing of the fries into my meal, whereas since the menu lists them as a side order, you should have asked, "Do you want fries beside that?"

Too much fun.

 

[Chesterton]

While I admit to being war-weary, I didn't accuse you of error. I merely say the question is one of the very difficult ones. At least for me anyway.

But I guess if it were easy you wouldn't have asked it.

 

[Eryk]

How much of your identity would you say comes from the external (culture, community, family, profession) vs. what comes from within you?

It's both, in different ways. On the one hand we might play our parts like everyone else, while reacting to personal experiences in different ways. Two men have experienced trauma, and one of them is bitter and guarded, and the other one is compassionate and open, but both of them have very similar root assumptions that they have absorbed from their culture. An extraordinary person will not be extraordinary in every way.

 

[quatona]

The extent to which the war-weary only give extremely guarded replies is a subject for another thread, but I do sometimes wonder how such people carry on conversations in the real world. I imagine these people going into McDonald's, placing an order, and when asked, "Do you want fries with that?" launching into a series of dialectical questions:

* I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "fries". Can you define that for me?
* Before I answer, can you tell me if you're a Deep Friedian or a Pan Friedian?
* I think you committed a categorical error when asking that question. "With" implies a mixing of the fries into my meal, whereas since the menu lists them as a side order, you should have asked, "Do you want fries beside that?"

Too much fun.

Pretend you are in a philosophy forum and not at a McDonalds counter.

 

[quatona]

How much of your identity would you say comes from the external (culture, community, family, profession) vs. what comes from within you?

I would say 100% of my identy comes from within me. What comes from the eternal is not my identity.

 

[Chesterton]

I would say 100% of my identy comes from within me. What comes from the eternal is not my identity.

Did your hair color come from within you? See part of the difficulty? We come from an egg and a sperm, you could just as easily say we are 100% external.

 

[quatona]

Did your hair color come from within you? See part of the difficulty?

No. If my hair colour doesn´t come from within me, it´s not part of my identity. When the keyterm isn´t defined I am going to define it as I see fit. It´s that simple.

We come from an egg and a sperm, you could just as easily say we are 100% external.

The question was not "where did we come from?" but "what makes our identity?", though.

 

[Chesterton]

No. If my hair colour doesn´t come from within me, it´s not part of my identity. When the keyterm isn´t defined I am going to define it as I see fit. It´s that simple.

The question was not "where did we come from?" but "what makes our identity?", though.

Okay then that goes to my first reply that "identity" is hard to define. If you define it as you see fit, how can I argue? But speaking as someone who is not you, if I see you across the room I might identify you by your hair color.

 

[Eryk]

No. If my hair colour doesn´t come from within me, it´s not part of my identity. When the keyterm isn´t defined I am going to define it as I see fit. It´s that simple.

The question was not "where did we come from?" but "what makes our identity?", though.

But we're all connected. For instance, a teacher does not exist without students. But then we could say that not all teachers are alike. And yet, a person cannot go against the grain without the grain - a person who strives to be unique needs others as a point of reference. He cannot be unique without them.

 

[quatona]

Okay then that goes to my first reply that "identity" is hard to define.

Not quite. A word isn´t hard to define. I can just define it, and I did so in my first post.
That´s the problem with people throwing out a mere word as the basis for a discussion: We don´t know what it is that they want to discuss.

If you define it as you see fit, how can I argue?

You can´t. That´s the very point. If the keyterm is not defined for purpose of a discussion, there can´t be arguments.

But speaking as someone who is not you, if I see you across the room I might identify you by your hair color.

Cool. But the question was not "by what would Chesterton identify you?". It was "how much of your identity would you say...?".

 

[quatona]

But we're all connected.

Yes. "Identity" is a questionable concept, to boot.

For instance, a teacher does not exist without students.

I work as a teacher, and I would keep existing without students.

But then we could say that not all teachers are alike. And yet, a person cannot go against the grain without the grain - a person who strives to be unique needs others as a point of reference. He cannot be unique without them.

How did you get from "identity" to uniqueness" so fast?

 

[Davian]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The question was not "where did we come from?" but "what makes our identity?", though.

Yes; I was wondering exactly what the OP meant - identity, in one sense, is what remains consistent about you over the years, when almost all of your cells and the elements that constitute them have been replaced (like the Ship of Theseus or Abe Lincoln's axe). In another sense, it relates to your mental sense of self, the sense of being uniquely 'you'. In another sense it is the set of your characteristics that other people perceive. In yet another sense, it is your officially recognised existence (e.g. ID cards).

So, which is it to be?

 

[Eryk]

I work as a teacher, and I would keep existing without students.

You wouldn't exist as a teacher without students. You wouldn't exist at all without your parents. What is left when we keep taking away these things? In what way can you exist independently?

How did you get from "identity" to uniqueness" so fast?

The identity of being different in how one thinks or behaves.

 

[quatona]

You wouldn't exist as a teacher without students.

Which just means that - according to my definition - "teacher" is not part of my identity.

You wouldn't exist at all without your parents.

Yes, but the question was not "what caused our existence", but "how much of your identitiy do you think...?".

What is left when we keep taking away these things? In what way can you exist independently?

I don´t think the topic was "independent existence", either, but "identity".

The identity of being different in how one thinks or behaves.

That´s not the definition of the word "identity" that I worked from.
I fail to see how "uniqueness" or "being different" is the criteria for identity.

Apart from that, your line of reasoning appears to be inconsistent:
You argued from the premise that teacher is part of my identity.
The you argued that identity is constituted by those things that make us unique, different.
Since there are millions of other teachers out there, teacher can´t be part of my identity - by your own criteria.

 

[Eryk]

I don´t think the topic was "independent existence", either, but "identity".

That wasn't the impression I got from this:

I would say 100% of my identy comes from within me. What comes from the eternal is not my identity.

I assume that you mean "external". I don't understand what you mean by saying that all of your identity comes from within you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I fail to see how "uniqueness" or "being different" is the criteria for identity.

There is a sense in which identity enables individual distinction; hence identity card. Certain fundamental particles come to mind as having no individual identity, they are indistinguishable, transparently and undetectably interchangeable.

 

[quatona]

That wasn't the impression I got from this:
I assume that you mean "external".

Yep, sorry for the typo.

I don't understand what you mean by saying that all of your identity comes from within you.

If something doesn´t come from within me, it´s not part of my identity.
The distinction "comes from external vs. comes from internal" wasn´t mine. It was the OP´s. Thus, if you don´t understand what the OP meant you may want to ask him.
(I don´t understand it either, I was just playing along with his "I´m not gonna define my terms - you do it for me" attitude.)