What Has Made You the Unique Person Who You Are?

[JackDaydream]

In asking this question, I am asking about the many variables which have contributed to the process of becoming. These include nature, nurture and the way in which a person develops an authentic self. RD Laing spoke of the idea of a false and true self, and how human identity is about making choices in how one shapes an inner and outer sense of identity. There is the persona, which may be the front or social role which a person leads and the process of finding an authentic self is about the way in which a person finds and forms a personal narrative or autobiographical sense of self.

This occurs in a social setting, a particular historical and cultural climate. It occurs in the social or intersubjective construction of meaning. A person is defined by others, which affects perception of self, as a physical and social being. How much is the making of identity about free choice and how do you feel that you, or any human being have constructed a unique, authentic identity and freely chosen pathway with the process of becoming the unique person who you are?

I would say that in my experience the difficult juggling of the process may be like a mythical journey, consisting of feedback from others, as well as reflecting on inner and outer experience. Life is based in a myriad or stories, with symbolic dimensions. How do you see the way identity is constructed and, the internalised understanding of nature and nurture, in the process of unique personhood? Is the construction of identity chosen freely, as a pathway of becoming?

[JackDaydream]

This thread is based on one which I had on TPF a short while ago, but part of the reason why I put it here today was because being a person may be more essential than gender distraction. Of course, gender identity is an important aspect of identity but what it means to be a person may be more important in some ways than the division based on the differences. It may be possible to see gender as a spectrum of possibilities, or even as a continuum rather than a binary distinction.

Also, the whole process of developing a self, as identity is based on social constructs, as argued by Erving Goffman in, 'The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life'. This draws upon social psychology and sociology. Anthony Giddens has spoken of the development of an authentic identity as being life politics. He suggests,
'The narrative of self-identify has to be shaped, altered and reflexively sustained in relation to to rapidly changing circumstances of social life, on a local and global scale. The individual must integrate information deriving from a diversity of mediated experiences...Only if the person is able to develop an inner authenticity- a framework of basic trust by means of giving coherence to the finite lifespan, given changing external circumstances. Life politics from this perspective concerns debates and conversations deriving from the reflexive project of the self.'

[stevie]

I am a person in terms of social convention. My ID card expresses my identity. But beyond that I cannot identify with "being a person" or "having identity". Actually I cannot even point to a self beyond my autobiographical narrative. Not sure whether "I" exist

[JackDaydream]

I am a person in terms of social convention. My ID card expresses my identity. But beyond that I cannot identify with "being a person" or "having identity". Actually I cannot even point to a self beyond my autobiographical narrative. Not sure whether "I" exist

It may be that identity cards become a central aspect of identity and, believe it or not, I don't have any photo ID because I have not travelled out of England and I don't drive. It is getting hard to exist without photo ID and I am thinking that I want to get a passport but the process of applying for one is difficult, if one has not had not had one before. As it is I end up using various paper proofs of ID. Also, the more digital everything becomes ID codes and numbers become more and more important. There was talk of vaccine passports on phones at one stage, and, who knows, it could be that at some point people will be microchipped from birth.

It is interesting that you don't see yourself as having an autobiographical identity whereas I do. The way in which I write probably shows the way in which my sense of identity is constructed in that way. It may be one of the main differences in how we approach thinking so differently from each other.

[JackDaydream]

Stevie,
When you say that you don't have a sense of 'I', do you mean that when you are thinking that you never think with the word, 'I', in the thoughts which you formulate?

[stevie]

Stevie,
When you say that you don't have a sense of 'I', do you mean that when you are thinking that you never think with the word, 'I', in the thoughts which you formulate?

Sorry but i cannot match your expression "you say that you don't have a sense of 'I'" with what I actually said:

I am a person in terms of social convention. My ID card expresses my identity. But beyond that I cannot identify with "being a person" or "having identity". Actually I cannot even point to a self beyond my autobiographical narrative. Not sure whether "I" exist

What does it mean for you to "have a sense of 'I', because obviously upon seeing my words you inferred "He does not have a sense of "I"".

[JackDaydream]

Stevie,
When you say that you don't have a sense of 'I', do you mean that when you are thinking that you never think with the word, 'I', in the thoughts which you formulate?

Sorry but i cannot match your expression "you say that you don't have a sense of 'I'" with what I actually said:

I am a person in terms of social convention. My ID card expresses my identity. But beyond that I cannot identify with "being a person" or "having identity". Actually I cannot even point to a self beyond my autobiographical narrative. Not sure whether "I" exist

What does it mean for you to "have a sense of 'I', because obviously upon seeing my words you inferred "He does not have a sense of "I"".

The basis on which I inferred that you did not have a sense of 'I' was because you said, 'Not sure whether "I'" exist.' Did I interpret your statement too literally?

[stevie]

Stevie,
When you say that you don't have a sense of 'I', do you mean that when you are thinking that you never think with the word, 'I', in the thoughts which you formulate?

Sorry but i cannot match your expression "you say that you don't have a sense of 'I'" with what I actually said:

I am a person in terms of social convention. My ID card expresses my identity. But beyond that I cannot identify with "being a person" or "having identity". Actually I cannot even point to a self beyond my autobiographical narrative. Not sure whether "I" exist

What does it mean for you to "have a sense of 'I', because obviously upon seeing my words you inferred "He does not have a sense of "I"".

The basis on which I inferred that you did not have a sense of 'I' was because you said, 'Not sure whether "I'" exist.' Did I interpret your statement too literally?

1. "I am a person in terms of social convention." means that I as a person do not inherently exist.
2. "My ID card expresses my identity." means again that my identity is social convention and thus does not inherently exist.
3. "Actually I cannot even point to a self beyond my autobiographical narrative" means that there is an autobiographical narrative but I cannot identify a mere narrative with "I" or my self.
So there is no basis of self identificarion and there being no basis of self identification I am not sure whether "I" (my self) exist(s). However that does not exclude that (my?) self appears [to whom? to myself?] nevertheless and thus I have a sense of my self as I have a sense of everything that appears [to whom? to myself?] .

[JackDaydream]

Stevie,
When you say that you don't have a sense of 'I', do you mean that when you are thinking that you never think with the word, 'I', in the thoughts which you formulate?

Sorry but i cannot match your expression "you say that you don't have a sense of 'I'" with what I actually said:

I am a person in terms of social convention. My ID card expresses my identity. But beyond that I cannot identify with "being a person" or "having identity". Actually I cannot even point to a self beyond my autobiographical narrative. Not sure whether "I" exist

What does it mean for you to "have a sense of 'I', because obviously upon seeing my words you inferred "He does not have a sense of "I"".

The basis on which I inferred that you did not have a sense of 'I' was because you said, 'Not sure whether "I'" exist.' Did I interpret your statement too literally?

1. "I am a person in terms of social convention." means that I as a person do not inherently exist.
2. "My ID card expresses my identity." means again that my identity is social convention and thus does not inherently exist.
3. "Actually I cannot even point to a self beyond my autobiographical narrative" means that there is an autobiographical narrative but I cannot identify a mere narrative with "I" or my self.
So there is no basis of self identificarion and there being no basis of self identification I am not sure whether "I" (my self) exist(s). However that does not exclude that (my?) self appears [to whom? to myself?] nevertheless and thus I have a sense of my self as I have a sense of everything that appears [to whom? to myself?] .

I am a little surprised that you don't feel that you exist as a person because I have a strong sense of being one. It is more important to me than the sense of ID documents. When I was at work I used to have an ID badge with my name, photo and job title and a similar one to get into computer records but the only significance of them was that I couldn't lose them because I needed them at work.

I guess that we have different basis for identity, with some seeing photos of themselves and their families as being essential. Job titles, aspects like marital status or having a partner may be important for some. The main basis for my own identity is a cohesive thread of memories, and that is probably the essential basis for my sense of being a person, especially in choices which I have made, including ones which I may regret.

[stevie]

Sorry but i cannot match your expression "you say that you don't have a sense of 'I'" with what I actually said:


What does it mean for you to "have a sense of 'I', because obviously upon seeing my words you inferred "He does not have a sense of "I"".

The basis on which I inferred that you did not have a sense of 'I' was because you said, 'Not sure whether "I'" exist.' Did I interpret your statement too literally?

1. "I am a person in terms of social convention." means that I as a person do not inherently exist.
2. "My ID card expresses my identity." means again that my identity is social convention and thus does not inherently exist.
3. "Actually I cannot even point to a self beyond my autobiographical narrative" means that there is an autobiographical narrative but I cannot identify a mere narrative with "I" or my self.
So there is no basis of self identificarion and there being no basis of self identification I am not sure whether "I" (my self) exist(s). However that does not exclude that (my?) self appears [to whom? to myself?] nevertheless and thus I have a sense of my self as I have a sense of everything that appears [to whom? to myself?] .

I am a little surprised that you don't feel that you exist as a person because I have a strong sense of being one.

For me it's difficult to delineate/differentiate "person", "self" and "I" because internally I have a very clear concept of what constiitutes "person", "self" and "I" but that concept cannot be expressed in a way that others might understand. Why? Because the topic of "person", "self" and "I" belongs to the non-evident.

[JackDaydream]

The basis on which I inferred that you did not have a sense of 'I' was because you said, 'Not sure whether "I'" exist.' Did I interpret your statement too literally?

1. "I am a person in terms of social convention." means that I as a person do not inherently exist.
2. "My ID card expresses my identity." means again that my identity is social convention and thus does not inherently exist.
3. "Actually I cannot even point to a self beyond my autobiographical narrative" means that there is an autobiographical narrative but I cannot identify a mere narrative with "I" or my self.
So there is no basis of self identificarion and there being no basis of self identification I am not sure whether "I" (my self) exist(s). However that does not exclude that (my?) self appears [to whom? to myself?] nevertheless and thus I have a sense of my self as I have a sense of everything that appears [to whom? to myself?] .

I am a little surprised that you don't feel that you exist as a person because I have a strong sense of being one.

For me it's difficult to delineate/differentiate "person", "self" and "I" because internally I have a very clear concept of what constiitutes "person", "self" and "I" but that concept cannot be expressed in a way that others might understand. Why? Because the topic of "person", "self" and "I" belongs to the non-evident.

It is likely that people have concepts of 'person', 'self' and "I" which may be difficult to put into words because they are passed onto us in socialisation but not clearly explained. I probably began putting them into words around about the time of adolescence, when I first began reading psychology and sociology, or even a little earlier because I can remember getting a book out from the school library when I was about 12. Probably, I was more of an introspective child than most and my parents used to talk a lot to me when I was a young child, so I may have put things into words a lot more than others, who were more interested in sports.

But, as far as your point about the non evident, people can see the physical body, but a sense of self, "I" and personhood is much harder to point to in an exact way. We may learn about others in this way by interacting with them, and comparing our own subjectivities with others. The sense of self in particular is one which is open to a lot of questioning though, especially as it may change so much through life. It can be asked am I the same "I" that I was at age 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and so on. All the cells in the body change every 7 years and people appear different at various stages and there is a lot of variations in this. Ideas may change, also in some more than others. The basic DNA changes although as people age this replication becomes weaker. The subjectivity may be cohesive or more fragmentary. In some ways the concept or construct of self may be elusive. Some Buddhists argue that there is no self, and the practice of meditation and, the stilling of thoughts may lead to a sense of emptying of the mind.

[Pattern-chaser]

1. "I am a person in terms of social convention." means that I as a person do not inherently exist.
2. "My ID card expresses my identity." means again that my identity is social convention and thus does not inherently exist.
3. "Actually I cannot even point to a self beyond my autobiographical narrative" means that there is an autobiographical narrative but I cannot identify a mere narrative with "I" or my self.
So there is no basis of self identification and there being no basis of self identification I am not sure whether "I" (my self) exist(s). However that does not exclude that (my?) self appears [to whom? to myself?] nevertheless and thus I have a sense of my self as I have a sense of everything that appears [to whom? to myself?] .

I wonder if what you describe here echoes, in some way, the dread that Libertarians have for society, perhaps of their 'individuality' being submerged or suppressed by society and being a member of it? Or maybe I'm just connecting two disparate concepts when I should not?

[Pattern-chaser]

For me it's difficult to delineate/differentiate "person", "self" and "I" because internally I have a very clear concept of what constitutes "person", "self" and "I" but that concept cannot be expressed in a way that others might understand. Why? Because the topic of "person", "self" and "I" belongs to the non-evident.

I wonder if it can be expressed (in language), but that it might well be misunderstood, as you say? Language is an impressive communications medium, but it is far from perfect, as we all know.

[Sunday66]

How much is the making of identity about free choice and how do you feel that you, or any human being have constructed a unique, authentic identity and freely chosen pathway with the process of becoming the unique person who you are?

The idea of authenticity is larger a matter of wanting to be a particular way. I think we are born having a certain character, but what we do is also up to our own choices and desires.

[stevie]

... Some Buddhists argue that there is no self, and the practice of meditation and, the stilling of thoughts may lead to a sense of emptying of the mind.

Yes, some but not all buddhists. However putting the religious stuff of buddhism aside I would agree with them that actually an analytical meditative approach is the only appropriate approach to the kind of questions like yours having to do with "person", "self" and "I". A philosophical approach appears ridiculous because that which does the "thinking about" actually is the object of investigation and thus whatever may be the result of "thinking about" lacks material objectivity (scientific evidence) which is a necessary prerequisite for the reliability of the result.
A theory about "person", "self" and "I" should match what can be "observed" in analytical meditation. Althought still there is a lack of material objectivity there is however correspondence of concepts and private "observation" which at least is similar to scientific public observation and thus there is a basis for reliability. That entails however that different individuals may have different "validated" theories which is acceptable as long as neuroscience does not come up with scientific evidence of mental phenomena like "self" and "I" proving either their scientific reality or the mechanism how the illusion of "self" and "I" arises.