Who am I?

[aaaaafkp]

AbrAbraxas

you mention existentialism and from my little studies into it i know that they love analysis and near irrelevant rationalizations. as a personal practice it can be very useful to examine fully your own motives and the consequences of the way you think and live but if you are not fully open and fully honest it is a practice in wordplay.
good day
hope to hear more soon

Well how objective is your hindsight? Have you ever heard of the concept "meta-rational" thinking? If you want I can find an essay on it online somewhere.

Even if you were honest, it is nothing more than wordplay. I believe you bend your reality and then you perceive your next intent based off of your hindsight as "truth", but it is equally possible within such a method are simply taking yourself away from your true intent and your instinct-- thus a product of your ideals (wishful thinking falsehoods). I would rather be a product of my nature and understand restraint.  

[tenchi_no_kashaku]

Would it not be easier to decide who one is rather than ask oneself? I mean, if you ask yourself something you don't know, you might as well be asking someone who doesn't know you at all. Am I correct? Why not tell yourself what you are? What you want to be. What do YOU want in life. There lies the answer to the path of decisions you must chose for yourself.  

[27x]

Stallin

Quote:

Who am I? Who are you? Who are we? Who is to say? Who knows? What do I mean when I say myself. What is a self. I should say it is my mind, but what is my mind? A complex system made up of which side of my brain I use? Perhaps what we might call a soul, or a personality? Or is our mind set. Is it nonexitent? Who is to say? Supposing I could controll my brainwaves, and I changed the way my mind works, would I still have a self? Would I have a new self? Would I know who I was? Would I even change at all? If My memories where changed, would I change as well? Who is to say? Who knows? Who am I? Who are you

I would say that we exist. I dont know how you feel about existance, as for me id say that if one thing was undebatable its that the world and everything in it exists. If we didnt who am i would be a pretty hard question to put an answer on. Lots of philosophers have their own definition of what makes our existance an existance. "I think therefore i am" or "compassion seprates us from beasts." if a brain defines your existance then it has to define the existance of everything that has a brain. Human knowlege of what a soul is, if it is, and what it is, is very limited. Its based on faith. If you have faith that you have a soul and that it defines your existance then thats what you believe and your question is answered. If you change your mind, memories, or personallity you have definatley changed. I would not say that you where a new person, thats only my opinion. I dont know if everything changes but i know that change happens. However if you where a new person everytime you change, how would you be old twice? Or a better question, If you cycle between old and new as often as you change would it really be concidered old and new? a car is only new once. Even recyclables like glass and paper is only really new once. For one person to define the existance of self for every thing with existance, thats very tough. You can define your own existance by thought, or spirit, or compassion whatever you decide to put your faith on. I wont try to define my own existance because there is always a possibility of the other alternative being correct. there is no definite way for me to define my own existance. But i know that i am.

I'm not going to read your post because of your picture of hitler. It is not funny, and very rude. If a simple square moustash is not aprropriate, then a picture of hitler himself saying ban all noobs is no better.  

[Amenubis]

And to think this had a relatively intelligent start, but came to a screeching, square-mustache banning halt.  

[AbrAbraxas]

Paracket

AbrAbraxas

you mention existentialism and from my little studies into it i know that they love analysis and near irrelevant rationalizations. as a personal practice it can be very useful to examine fully your own motives and the consequences of the way you think and live but if you are not fully open and fully honest it is a practice in wordplay.
good day
hope to hear more soon

Well how objective is your hindsight? Have you ever heard of the concept "meta-rational" thinking? If you want I can find an essay on it online somewhere.

Even if you were honest, it is nothing more than wordplay. I believe you bend your reality and then you perceive your next intent based off of your hindsight as "truth", but it is equally possible within such a method are simply taking yourself away from your true intent and your instinct-- thus a product of your ideals (wishful thinking falsehoods). I would rather be a product of my nature and understand restraint.

i agree that truth is a relative term and that it often is based more on consensus than on any definite factor. in my above quoted post i was encouraging all to take the time to examine the possibility that we have motives to our actions and that we have a choice as to what we do and what we become and in such a condition we are already what we are and at the same time we do not know what it as and may actually pretend to be something else in the confusion of the world.
i applaud your emphasis on restraint and wonder if we can be anything other than a product of our "nature".  

[whynaut]

Self? I am not sure I believe in a self? If I think therefore I am, then which "I" am I? As many people in this thread have pointed out, people change over time and become very different people. Are you the same person you were 10 years ago, or the person you think you will be 10 years from now? If there is a soul, then I think it is as mutable as anything else.

But maybe there is an "I" that though mutable is distinct. I may have a million different "I"s but they are mine. However, don't we make distinctions based on other people? Whenever we act we fall back on what other people might think (we don't want to be rude, do we?), on rules that have been instilled into us by others, on society's basic rights and wrongs, etc. There are many of us who try an act "against the grain" of society, but even in that case we are still defined by others in the sense that we make an attempt to be different. Even those who "try to be themselves" can not help but notice how they compare and contrast to others and might be subconsciously altered by such comparisons. If this is the case, then where do you end and I begin?

So what is "true self"? It would have to be something that has not changed and has not been influenced by anyone, right? Perhaps the person we were when we were newborns; back we were all the proverbial tabula rasa. But were we really? Even newborns personalties are effected to some degree by their parent's genetics. A violent temper or an aptitude toward numbers might be passed down. I know I have my mother's hair and my father's eyes, not to mention my grandfather's nose and perhaps my great great grandmother's left ankle. And beyond genetics, a newborn is born into circumstances that effect it's upbring: living on a farm, or in the ghetto, or in Bangladesh all stain on a baby that define it before it is even born.

So what is self? You got me. We are ever changing, ever influenced, and slaves to forces put about before we ever had a chance to know what they were.  

[AbrAbraxas]

whynaut

Self? I am not sure I believe in a self? If I think therefore I am, then which "I" am I? As many people in this thread have pointed out, people change over time and become very different people. Are you the same person you were 10 years ago, or the person you think you will be 10 years from now? If there is a soul, then I think it is as mutable as anything else.

But maybe there is an "I" that though mutable is distinct. I may have a million different "I"s but they are mine. However, don't we make distinctions based on other people? Whenever we act we fall back on what other people might think (we don't want to be rude, do we?), on rules that have been instilled into us by others, on society's basic rights and wrongs, etc. There are many of us who try an act "against the grain" of society, but even in that case we are still defined by others in the sense that we make an attempt to be different. Even those who "try to be themselves" can not help but notice how they compare and contrast to others and might be subconsciously altered by such comparisons. If this is the case, then where do you end and I begin?

So what is "true self"? It would have to be something that has not changed and has not been influenced by anyone, right? Perhaps the person we were when we were newborns; back we were all the proverbial tabula rasa. But were we really? Even newborns personalties are effected to some degree by their parent's genetics. A violent temper or an aptitude toward numbers might be passed down. I know I have my mother's hair and my father's eyes, not to mention my grandfather's nose and perhaps my great great grandmother's left ankle. And beyond genetics, a newborn is born into circumstances that effect it's upbring: living on a farm, or in the ghetto, or in Bangladesh all stain on a baby that define it before it is even born.

So what is self? You got me. We are ever changing, ever influenced, and slaves to forces put about before we ever had a chance to know what they were.

excellent points. your middle paragraph about what others think and programmed behaviors brings to mind a popular concept of self which i dont think has yet been mentioned so i suppose it is time that i bring it up.
what i think to be sigmund freud's greatest accomplishment in theory is the structure of personality. he claims that what we commonly know as ourselves is actually three pieces. i dont think that it is a definite or immutable fact but it is something that we can think about, examine and see functioning in ourselves and others. the id, ego and superego. in short the id represents the unconscious instinctual factor in our personalities, it is elusive to conscious sight and is more of a raw energy source. the ego is the self image, the idea of ourselves which we develop through the process of individuation and maturation, at some point instead of learning about ourselves and forming a shape to the ego we become defined by it and instead fill it with air using it as a kind of flotation device in a sea of egos. what many people think of them self is the ego but it is more a description of their past experiences and their habits of thinking, hardly the true self(in my opinion and that of some). what you have spoken of is the third structure, the superego, in common language it is the conscience, it is a record of the teachings, behavior and reprimands of childhood with minor adjustments throughout our lives. as you pointed out even those who try to be different or individual by rebelling or going against expectations are still defined by the exterior conditions.

what then of this "true self"? it is hard for me to say in such a way that everyone would understand, as it is a matter of the process of discovery that we need to see for ourselves. i can say that we do not think of ourselves, what we think of ourselves is added to the ego. many claim that the ego needs to be removed but i find that a disastrous overreaction, the ego may need to be decentralized, but it needs to be strong enough to participate in the world. however if we are willing to consider that the ego is a structure that we have constructed we might be able to see beyond it intuitively to a higher self, more real and personal than anything that we have built.  

[Lawliet Yushira]

I agree with the person who said "Who am I?" is followed by "Who do I want to be?" because you are who you want to be. That's how the saying "You can do anything you put your mind to." came to be. You're putting your mind into being who you want to be.  

[Smartteaser192]

Aside from memory, let us take it from conscience and consciousness. I would prefer to take it from a psychological perspective.

We are not only our own memory but we are also our own conscience and consciousness.

Sentience is the uniqueness of humanity. In psychoanalysis, the consciousness and sub-consciousness has 3 parts: id, ego and superego. We are the id, the ego and the superego collectively.

Our conscience is basically our superego which is the arm of morality in the personality.

But, how are these abstract figures developed as part of MAN?  

[Raticiel]

Smartteaser192

Aside from memory, let us take it from conscience and consciousness. I would prefer to take it from a psychological perspective.

We are not only our own memory but we are also our own conscience and consciousness.

Sentience is the uniqueness of humanity. In psychoanalysis, the consciousness and sub-consciousness has 3 parts: id, ego and superego. We are the id, the ego and the superego collectively.

Our conscience is basically our superego which is the arm of morality in the personality.

But, how are these abstract figures developed as part of MAN?

I'm impressed. I thought Freud was out of fashion. Actually, psychoanalysis is a psychological theory. It may explain some stuff about "I" but I'm afraid it can't tell us what is "I".

I think "I" is simply something which resides in our heads. Simple as that. Not necessarily in our brains. Whenever I look into the mirror or I think about myself like, what kind of person I am, I start to think about a certain "picture of me". So I'm not thinking about "I". That "I" thing is unreachable. I'd even agree with Hume or James. (yet I still believe there is something like my "soul", but here I don't want to start writing about my feelings)