Identity: Who Am I?

Who am I?

Perhaps one of the first questions that we should deal with is the question of "who am I?"

It was one of the foundational questions that Socrates asked, commanding that you should "know theyself", and we continue to ask who we are today.

The Paradox of the Ship of Theseus

The paradox of the Ship of Theseus is described by Plutarch, the Roman writer, and he describes it as having been predating him.

The story goes that Theseus travelled the Aegean Sea, and eventually retired. The townsfolk of his home city on the coast, took his ship and set it up as a monument to his journeys of discovery. As time passed, the ship began to rot and crumble. The towns folk dutifully replaced each part with a carefully fashioned and exacting replica. After many years had gone by, every piece of the ship had eventually been replaced, and some of the townsfolk began to question whether it was Theseus' ship at all.

What is it that makes the ship, Theseus' Ship? Is it ownership, material, social identity, lineage, the "concept" or "shape" of it in the mind? What is, precisely, the Ship of Theseus?

The thought experiment has taken on myriad other renditions, but the importance of this thought experiment is more important than ever. What gives a company it's identity? How should heritage buildings be treated? What makes grandma, grandma even if her memory is shakey or her mind broken? What happens if we "teleport" into the Metaverse? Are we still us, or is there a replica or approximation of us recreated?

Theories of Selfhood:

Cartesian Dualism / Homunculus

Descartes famously began his effort to attain certainty by doubting everything, but discovered that there was one thing that he could not doubt. His own existence. The fact that he doubts, proved to him that there was a thinking entity that was "himself". From here Descartes reasoned that there were two distinct "types" of things: mental, and physical. These appeared to be distinct according to their attributes, and therefore, Descartes reasoned must co-exist as two "layers" of ourselves. There is a "ghost in the machine", where something that is "us" controls our body, whether it is our physical body, or our brains and thoughts.

The theory has gone through numerous variations, and variations of this are still held by major thinkers.

Memory Theory

John Locke argued that people are born as "tabula rasa" - blank slates. They must learn everything from experience and observation. What begins to emerge, is the thing we might call "us". It is the compiled memory of all our our past experiences and understanding. He argued that even though we might forget certain things, there is a continuity between the us that forgot, and one who could remember those experiences. His theories are still very prevalent, and very influential, particularly in law.

Materialism / Physiological Self

Materialism or Reductivism, as it is sometimes called, argues that the things we call "experiences" are simply and purely equivalent to brain states. Simply put, we are our experiences, and our experiences are simply brain states triggered by stimuli.

This theory argues that there is no need for elaborate or complicated explanations of "self-hood" beyond that brain. We are simply, our brains.

Certain case-studies have been used to argue for this, for example the case of P. Phineas Gage, a railway worker whose personality dramatically changed after taking a rainway rod through his brain. Recent scholarship has challenged some of this narrative however, arguing that Gage had a number of other complicating factors in his case.

Psychological Self

This view is a large umbrella term used to address identity in terms of how we think, how we think about ourselves, and the processes by which we understand these questions. Identity is not so much based on our physiological brain states as the thoughts, impressions, and conceptions that are created by these.

This can become a "chicken or the egg" problem where either brain states, or mental states are seen as having priority in explaining who we are.

Social Self / Performed Self

This theory, postulated by thinkers such as Erving Goffman and numerous others in various shapes and variations argues that we are primarily shaped by our environment and the circumstances around us.

In this view the "self" is constructed out of our social surroundings where we act, perform, think, and respond according to observed roles and our surrounding communities. Essentially, we *are* our performed roles.

Self as an Illusion / Unimportant

Derek Parfit and a number of other philosophers have suggested that the "self" may be an artificial narrative laid over . The self is a fiction or a construct created by ourselves by which to understand our experiences.

This view argues that the view of ourselves as being observers, actors, or pilots of our bodies is simply an illusion, and that we are simply and purely sensory experiences that we artificially string together to make a comprehensive whole for the sake of its utility.

Choice:

Existentialism argues that we are primarily shaped by our choices, especially as they shape ourselves. Every choice that we make is a reflection of ourselves, and what we want the world to be.

There are no preconditions, no template, and no rigid lines except those imposed by our society - and those are artificial based on tradition, utility, or social function. We are capable, and in fact do, choose constantly - thereby creating our own identity.

Thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Satre, Derrida, and Foucault were deeply influential, and these connected well with Western conceptions of freedom and the good. Recently they have come under criticism for the effect they have in our life.

Choice and Autonomy:

These questions become more pressing when we consider the question of choice and autonomy. To what extent do we allow people their own choices? We don't afford children their own choices, and we don't allow people who are not well their own choices. Further we remove some people's ability to choose based on their past choices (aka. prison, detention, or . We also acknowledge that substances or circumstances can effect our choices.

We also expect authority figures to put guide-rails on choices constantly. A tourist attraction must put up fences to keep stupid people from jumping on moving rides. A bartender is legally obligated to cut people off, or to ensure that they are not driving home. Employees are generally not allowed to engage in romantic relationships with their bosses, and people in traumatic or difficult circumstances are sometimes seen as being more vulnerable to being "taken advantage of" because of their experiences or needs.

If the ability to choose, or the choices that we make comprise a part of who we are - when or how should we limit it, and under what circumstances is it free?

Political Ramifications and Theories:

Rawlsian Liberalism

Multiculturalism

Nozick's Entitlement Theory

Overpaid athletes and CEOs are often cited as classic cases of injustice where resources are unequally distributed in extravagant and excessive ways. Robert Nozick challenged these ideas though. He used the Wilt Chamberlain Thought experiment, where he posited the idea that Wilt Chamberlain (a famous basketball player) could request additional money be virtue of the fact that he is playing in the game. The owners acquire more ticket revenue every time he plays, and it is reasonable that he should be given part of that money when he does.

The idea is that certain inequities should be allowed by virtue of their emerging from the performance, circumstances, or demand that surround them.

If athletes are overpaid, who should profit from the ticket sales? CEOs? Concession Stand workers? Nation States?

Communitarianism?

Page updated

Report abuse