Advertisement
Guest User

Untitled

a guest
Jun 24th, 2019
108
0
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 11.59 KB | None | 0 0
  1. When our voices are heard for the last time, is when we turn from being a physical individual, to an abstract concept. A memory.
  2. What may of may not be left of us when we die is irrelevant. A body left behind is completely void of that which made an individual an individual.
  3. Though the corpse we leave behind may look like us when we were alive, it otherwise holds absolutely no correlation to the idea of who we weref. Thus we question our identity. What makes us individuals? Is it our physical bodies? Is it the memories we possess? Is it our personality? Each of these questions can be answered: No. Every few years the molecular structures that compose a human body are completely replaced with new ones, which means that every few years our physical body is completely different and, therefore, cannot define who we are. Of course, memories are unique to each person, but
  4. how exactly does someone's memories define who they are? Memories are simply events that our brain has recorded, and aside from us recalling them in our head ,telling them to others, or even those memories affecting our contemporary behaviour, memories are not something which definitively represent the individuals identity. Take, for example, two humans who initially have absolutely no memories stored in their brains. They are completely blank. If both of them are separately, in a perfectly controlled environment, shown the same picture, thus creating their first and only memory, does that make their identities equal? The statement ‘equal identities’ alone proves that memories cannot logically define individuality as it is contradictory to say that there exist two of any unique object. At that point, those said objects are no longer unique. Thus, even if two humans have completely identical memories and identical physical appearances, they are not the same individual. To better understand this we can compare to human clones, who are identical in every imaginable way: they look the same, have the same memories, and have indistinguishable personalities. Physically speaking, these clones are the same. Nobody would ever know if their friend was switched, given that they are unaware which of them is the clone, or that a clone even exists. Ethically speaking, however, they are not the same person. Imagine now your best friend is swapped with an identical clone, but this time you are completely aware of this. Despite the clone exhibiting identical behaviour and perfectly matching the person whom they are based off, you would still not see the clone as the same person. Even if you are told that this clone is in every way, shape, and form the person whom he replaced, you still will not have the same feelings and attitude towards them and would ultimately not consider them the same person. You wouldn’t feel attached to the same extent if at all. This clearly shows how identity is not defined by something as simple as how someone looks or acts. Our brains subconsciously consider a clone to be a different individual. This raises the question: what factor does our brain take into account that makes us perceive two seemingly identical beings as two different individuals. This question can be better analyzed with the aforementioned speculation that a human will not consider a clone to have a different identity than whom they replaced, given they are unaware that cloning took place. The fact that we cannot differentiate two different identities without being told that they are indeed different, leads us to believe that there is actually nothing about a human that gives themselves a legitimate metaphysical identity which separates them from a clone. Rather, it seems that the only thing that gives us a unique identity are other people.
  5. More specifically, human attachment. When we become close to people, we frequently become attached to them. Human attachment essentially means that we find that person irreplaceable. This is not to say that that person cannot physically be replaced. All this means is that once we become attached, there is no one in the world that will exactly match how we see this person. Again, this is not to say that there is “no one better than them”, but rather that there is simply nobody else like them. Note, however, that this is only true to someone whom you are attached to. For example, say you just met someone. Because this is your first time talking to them, you haven’t had enough time or reason to become emotionally attached to them. Thus, we do not consider them irreplaceable because, to us, they aren’t really any different from the next person you see on the streets. This can also be applied to clones. If you are told to talk to two clones, given they are people you do not know, it won’t matter to you which one is the real person and which one is the clone. To you, they are the same because they hold no unique identity in your mind. To further strengthen this point, take this analogy: Imagine you are single and you hook up with someone at a party, then you both go on your way. You can repeat this process the next day because for you these people are replaceable. They hold no emotional value for you (of course it is possible to become attached in such a short time, but assume we are talking of a deeper attachment). Now imagine you are married, and assume you are really in love with this person. Because of this love, you are emotionally attached to them. They are irreplaceable to you and any experience you have with them won’t be the same if it is a different person. Not to mention the ethical concerns, it simply will not be the same or special if the person you love is replaced with someone you aren’t attached to, even if they ultimately serve the same purpose. From this we see that we give the people that we become attached to, whether it is romantic love or friendship, a very special unique value that we ourselves cannot really explain.
  6. This theory of identity brings up more to think about. If we rely on relationships with other people to have an identity, does this mean that people who are socially withdrawn and have no relationships lack identity? According to a quick search, an identity crisis is “a period of uncertainty and confusion in which a person's sense of identity becomes insecure, typically due to a change in their expected aims or role in society” (Google dictionary). This definition backs up the claim that our identity is not apparent when we do not have someone to give it to us. It essentially says that when somebody doesn’t have or know their role in society, they don’t know what their identity is supposed to be. Despite this, everyone must have an identity regardless whether or not they know it. It is simply illogical to say that someone doesn’t have an identity, because that would mean they are either dead of have never been born. In any case, the absence of an identity implies nonexistence. Even if an individual is going through an identity crisis, their identity is still present.
  7. Furthermore, having a “role in society” means that you must have contact with said society. And, having contact with society is the exact same thing as having contact with other human beings within that society because society is simply a collection of people coexisting. Having said this it is important to understand that having an identity crisis does necessarily mean that that person has absolutely no requited human attachment. It simply means that they do not feel like those relationships adequately give them a solid identity.
  8.  
  9. From this analysis of what exactly is an identity, we theorize that it is not anything about the actual physical body that gives one a unique identity. Every single person, even if they are exact replicas, and even if they otherwise seem like the same person, has a unique identity. This identity is given to us by other people whom we maintain a requited and strong attachment. This attachment is a special link that makes an individual a unique, special, and irreplaceable in the eyes of the other party. When that link is present, we become familiar with our identity by observing how the other party treats you as a person. The way you are treated allows one to answer certain questions such as what kind of person they are, what their potential is, who are they supposed to be etc. Answering these questions helps you understand your uniqueness and therefore your identity. The more relationships you have, the better you understand who you are as a person. Virtually all relationships contribute to the understanding of identity. These relationships can also be negative or toxic ones. Even those relationships can make you reflect on your unique identity. However, negative relationships, or even any relationship that severely differs from can have the opposite effect and actually decrease your understanding of your identity and potentially induce an identity crisis. If one becomes attached to another individual and receives feedback that doesn’t match what they have received from other relationships it can make them seriously reconsider the nature of their identity. Of course, if these occurrences are sparse and differ, they can be ignored. As stated before, it is true that every relationship affects your understanding of identity, but it is also true that some relationships can give you feedback that is so wildly disproportionate to what you have gathered about your identity, that it can be disregarded because it is so unlikely to ever occur again. Generally, you will notice that most people whom you form an attachment with will only reinforce your identity. However, this relies on factors such as mental stability and sometimes even luck. A relationship with someone who is mentally ill can potentially give you wrong ideas of your identity, which is understandable. A friendship with a schizophrenic will likely feel strange as their interpretation of you and your identity may be irrational. The identity they attach to you will be unlike others and won’t correctly establish who you are as a person. In their eyes, you are wildly different than how most see, and if someone close to you were to look through a schizophrenics eyes, they would see not recognize you. Luck is also a factor which can give false feedback of your identity. It is entirely possible that a relationship you form with someone just completely fails as a result of incompatible personalities or other uncontrollable circumstances. Whatever it is, when a relationship fails for such unexpected reasons, it can generate very unusual views between the parties, and potentially skew what you thought your identity was. Again, an event like this is best disregarded because it was simply an unlucky series of events which do not accurately reflect your identity.
  10. Nonetheless, it is not entirely correct to say that an extremely different identity that is attached to you is “wrong”. Granted, they can be called outliers, but because the idea of identity is an abstract concept, it does not know right or wrong. The identity someone gives you is accurate relative to their experiences with you. For a schizophrenic, the way they see you is correct in their mind. Their mentally ill mind works differently and how they interpret you is accurate relative how they think. In an unlucky relationship, that identity that is attached to you or vice versa is also correct during the specific time period where everything went wrong. Even if what happened was completely unlucky and unpreventable, the events caused skewed observations which are accurate relative to what occurred, whether or not it was unusual. There isn’t a right or wrong, so all we can say with regards to which identity is “correct”, is based off what is generally accepted; how most people see you as.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement