Identify Yourself

If someone asks "Who are you?", then you initially respond by telling them your name, which was assigned to you with no prior knowledge of your personal characteristics. You might also respond by stating an association, whether it's some form of membership, loyalty, nationality, philosophy, occupation, etc.

Can we ever really express who we truly are, without attaching some external concept? When you ask yourself, "Who am I?", how long do you ponder that question and what do you eventually settle on?

If someone asks "Who are you?", then you initially respond by telling them your name, which was assigned to you with no prior knowledge of your personal characteristics. You might also respond by stating an association, whether it's some form of membership, loyalty, nationality, philosophy, occupation, etc.

Can we ever really express who we truly are, without attaching some external concept? When you ask yourself, "Who am I?", how long do you ponder that question and what do you eventually settle on?

Very interesting topic. I never liked my given name and always felt uncomfortable using it in an introduction. I am stumped by this topic! I just realized I don't know who I am! Just thought of the way AA people introduce their selves at a meeting: Hello, my name is Such and Such and I am an alcoholic. ( rarely drink - I just saw this on TV many times) Still thinking.

I have no real idea who I am. I know my weakness and my strengths but not much else. I never liked people asking me what I do for a living as if it somehow described me. Yes a very good question, will have to give it more thought.

The question is both impossible to answer and discourteous unless it is the police or someone needing official identification. Socially, I'd say 'I am listening to this wood pigeon, I rather enjoy the cooing sound.' or ' Have you read the latest Dan Brown?' Or something equally trivial .Depending upon the social situation I might produce a utility bill.

Ontologically which I guess is what Spiral Out meant, I'd say that I hold to the bundle theory as expounded by David Hume.

What ties the bundle together? Memories mainly. Water under the bridge.

Having moved to a country in which I knew only one person and began a new life, this is a question I've answered...several times...

As for my name, I provide it first, saying, "My name is ______________." Or, I am introduced using that name. It is certainly not 'who I am', but rather, it is 'what I am called'. Providing it is a courtesy, allowing people to know how to address you...

As for my occupation, in my previous life, it was an indicator of who I was, in part, certainly. In our world, how we fill the majority of hours of our life is relevant, isn't it? It may not define us, but to ignore that it exists ignores a large part of our lives.

When people ask about who you are, lets just be honest - they are not overly interested in what makes us tick. They are interested in the basics. So that's what we provide. If, however, we stumble upon an individual who truly wants to 'know' us, we will delve deeper and discuss what we think and how we feel.

I think the there is a wide variance in the effort people put into examing themselves depending on many factors including cultural norms, personality, inteligence level, life experience and so on. How we resond to being questioned relies largely on the environment we are in when we are being asked and who is asking. We have the ability to know that other humans can be are a threat because we have reason and know that we ourselves can be a threat to other humans. This understanding will also varry due to the factors that I mentioned previously and therefore people will respond defenssivly in many cases trying to maintain discretion and to protect ones self.

Intimate relationships are what allow us to try and more openly express who we are which requires more introspection. Developing trust with another person or group can make people more comfortable with sharing their deepest reflections of how they percieve themselves. Slef help/support groups are a good example of this dynamic in a group setting.

The question is both impossible to answer and discourteous unless it is the police or someone needing official identification. Socially, I'd say 'I am listening to this wood pigeon, I rather enjoy the cooing sound.' or ' Have you read the latest Dan Brown?' Or something equally trivial .Depending upon the social situation I might produce a utility bill.

You must be so much fun at parties!

Belinda, the "who are you" question need not be a literal verbal asking of the question, but may be an implied "who are you" as with any meeting between persons previously unacquainted. I am actually more interested in the self-questioning "who am I" part of this topic, so perhaps I should have lead my post with that. However, I think it is still important to note how the expression of the result (if any) of that exercise would be put forth to another individual. I find it interesting that you had addressed the "who are you" aspect and not the "who am I" aspect of this topic, whereas both Misty & Xris had given (in my opinion) a more honest response to the question of the "who am I" aspect.

My position is that of an individualistic nature, thus when providing my thoughts on any topic, I assume that perspective. This post is to try to sort through what defined relative position anyone is able to take based on the concept of the "who am I" concept as an individual.

Ontologically which I guess is what Spiral Out meant, I'd say that I hold to the bundle theory as expounded by David Hume.

I know a little about Hume's bundle theory but I am not familiar with the fine details, but I will research his theory in greater depth. I am hesitant to use his theory, which I have limited knowledge of, to offer any thoughts, but if i understand the basic concept of his theory, then we cannot refer to ourselves as "I" since there is no self. Indeed, we can't even refer to ourselves as "ourselves". Are we then merely projections of others onto our own minds, and they are us as we project onto them? When someone 'asks' "Who are you?" is the correct response then "a collection of the experience of others"? Are we to renounce our own consciousness as a separate entity?

As for my name, I provide it first, saying, "My name is ______________." Or, I am introduced using that name. It is certainly not 'who I am', but rather, it is 'what I am called'. Providing it is a courtesy, allowing people to know how to address you...

This is my point exactly in regards to the external references we give.

As for my occupation, in my previous life, it was an indicator of who I was, in part, certainly. In our world, how we fill the majority of hours of our life is relevant, isn't it? It may not define us, but to ignore that it exists ignores a large part of our lives.

It is relevant as to what you do, as in the saying "A man is defined by his actions.", but only to the point of an external relative interpretation of those actions.

When people ask about who you are, lets just be honest - they are not overly interested in what makes us tick. They are interested in the basics. So that's what we provide.

Sad, but true.

If, however, we stumble upon an individual who truly wants to 'know' us, we will delve deeper and discuss what we think and how we feel.

Isn't this more to the point of who we are? Are we simply a collection of thoughts and feelings? I would agree that our thoughts and feelings are heavily influenced by other people and external forces, but isn't it in how we process and act on those external stimuli, in fact, what answers the question "Who am I"? Can it be expressed with any relative accuracy?

Intimate relationships are what allow us to try and more openly express who we are which requires more introspection. Developing trust with another person or group can make people more comfortable with sharing their deepest reflections of how they percieve themselves.

I don't think there are very many people who invest too much time for any genuine introspection. If we had absolute trust (if even possible) in someone, and we were to open up completely, either to another individual or to a group, would we even be able to express who we truly are, and in words or concepts that have no external reference or attachment?

I may be going around in circles with this, but I am genuinely interested in how, and if, the stance for individualism can be justified based on the concept and existence of "I". This is my attempt for a further understanding of the individual self.

I don't think there are very many people who invest too much time for any genuine introspection. If we had absolute trust (if even possible) in someone, and we were to open up completely, either to another individual or to a group, would we even be able to express who we truly are, and in words or concepts that have no external reference or attachment?

I may be going around in circles with this, but I am genuinely interested in how, and if, the stance for individualism can be justified based on the concept and existence of "I". This is my attempt for a further understanding of the individual self.

When we express ourselves to others there is always a filter. If we think we are being honest or actually are being honest it is because we are trying to specifically project how we would like to be perceived. I think this can be a more honest and authentic experience with people that you respect and or care about because we would not go through so much effort to convince everyone of who we really are or who we really want to be as there is no intimate connection.

I'm a different stream of consciousness each time you ask. Personal identity is an illusion upheld by connectivity of memories. But there is no "further fact" to it. I'm the same person I was yesterday only to the extent that I remember things my former self remembered, and to the extent my character is similar. But why should this be so special? Why should I care about my future selves and not about the very moment I am in right now?

To use a thought experiment by Derek Parfit: Imagine you enter a teletransporter that destroys your body, but makes an exact copy of it on Mars. Would be a very effective way to travel, right? Now, imagine the teletransporter makes *two* exact copies of you. What now? The question "which is the real me?" is empty. All there is to it is that you have two persons with memories of a former self and with the same character. No further fact.

I'm already a different momentary stream of consciousness than I was back when I started writing this answer. And no, I'm not trying to be pretentious here, I think that's actually what is going on. And it raises some interesting questions about practical rationality and ethics.

. But why should this be so special? Why should I care about my future selves and not about the very moment I am in right now?

I'm already a different momentary stream of consciousness than I was back when I started writing this answer. And no, I'm not trying to be pretentious here, I think that's actually what is going on. And it raises some interesting questions about practical rationality and ethics.

Part of who you are in the present is anticipating consequences of systems that you are a part of. This is just how the most human minds function. We are constantly absorbing information weather we are aware of it or not or are activly analyzing data. People who are not anticipating the potential reactions to there choices or running the cause and effect rule in their subconscious have some sort of a glitch that causes them to act out compulsively or sporaticly that is not in line with the systenm they live in.

Sure your experiences continues to change your perspective as time progresses and your memory functions as a syphon for information. Some time memories can be supressed or enhanced by repitious effort or activity. The reason you should care about the future is that if you don't you are less likely to make it there or to be able to thrive there. Because the future does not exist yet does not mean that you can not be conditioning yourself to function at an optimum level when faced with certain potentialities that you know may come to pass because of your pryor experience.

If someone asks "Who are you?", then you initially respond by telling them your name, which was assigned to you with no prior knowledge of your personal characteristics. You might also respond by stating an association, whether it's some form of membership, loyalty, nationality, philosophy, occupation, etc.

Can we ever really express who we truly are, without attaching some external concept? When you ask yourself, "Who am I?", how long do you ponder that question and what do you eventually settle on?

That I can recall I have never been asked "who are you?", well at least not in such blunt manner.

The question is usually applied to add context to a name which in itself tells you nothing except perhaps where you or your parents came from. It's more direct than saying "tell me a little about yourself".

As to who or what I really am is a completely superfluous and meaningless question. The best which time allots to one's existence is to gain familiarity and attempt to be honest with oneself based upon self-knowledge - always much easier said than done. Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living but examining it may not make it any better at least on an individual level.

What about if you reply, "the most responsible man that there has ever lived, according to records"?

That I can recall I have never been asked "who are you?", well at least not in such blunt manner.

I meant it more as an implied "Who are you" than a literally spoken "Who are you". But I am actually more interested in the "Who am I" aspect of this question. I find it interesting if people would express that they are the sum of their particular interests or affiliations, or maybe their memorable experiences, or if they attach or relate their identity to some other concept that has made a significant impression on them.

I meant it more as an implied "Who are you" than a literally spoken "Who are you". But I am actually more interested in the "Who am I" aspect of this question. I find it interesting if people would express that they are the sum of their particular interests or affiliations, or maybe their memorable experiences, or if they attach or relate their identity to some other concept that has made a significant impression on them.

Well does the mirror of life tells you who you are?