Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

maniacleruler t1_jdw3ir0 wrote

I often feel as if I am simply an amalgamation of those I know.

412

ProudKingbooker t1_jdwvj9n wrote

And that is really the best way of seeing it.

We're like canvasses and the people in our lives come in and paint on us, make us who we are.

Some people paint over each other and others are obscured under this paint. But they stay there, under all the layers, making us who we are, even if it's under the surface.

Others are the primary colors, such as family and other loved ones.

332

maniacleruler t1_jdx2djq wrote

Someone who I can say I loved unconditionally passed away. Lately I feel them in my every expression. Maybe it’s my subconscious mind doing it intentionally but it does bring me some sort of comfort.

87

ProudKingbooker t1_jdx37dk wrote

Exactly.

The people we love change us. When they leave, they don't really leave as the live within us through the actions and quirks that we pick up from them.

I think it's a beautiful thing and something to be embraced. I hope everything goes well for you.

I'm sending hugs your way!

55

throwaway901617 t1_jdxr4k6 wrote

There's a profound point here that people are afraid of being forgotten, yet by this very analogy if we are largely the result of those we interact with "painting" us then there must exist an unbroken line of "paintings" back to the earliest social life forms.

Our.parents were "painted" by their loved ones including their parents, and the "paint" that they used in turn came from their own parents and friends, and so on.

So society in a sense is the buildup of "paint" across the ages creating certain patterns.

49

BenjaminHamnett t1_je21c5r wrote

But then it goes back to what the other commenter said about the environment inducing thoughts

What we learn from others is mimetic. One definition of culture is simply how people adjust to fit their environments. So being “painted” is really imitating what we feel other people are doing right.

I feel very much like a vessel of memes and behaviors I adopted from other people who figured things out. Unfortunately I have a lot of junk wiring from society indoctrinating me in bullshit I can deconstruct with reason, but then you forget and drift back toward convention

2

redditingtonviking t1_jdy33tu wrote

Yeah I lost a dear friend of mine 12 years ago. He was the kindest person I’ve ever met with a silly sense of humour that could brighten even the darkest times. Now I can never be as good as him in every aspect as I also have to be myself and do the things that make me me. However he changed me as a person both in life and death, and now I find people often saying that I’m the one that’s kind with silly sense of humour. And that feeling of knowing that to some I’m that kind of friend that he used to be for me, I must admit that has helped me getting over that loss.

21

Quantum_Kitties t1_je0qm0r wrote

A year ago I lost someone whom I love very deeply. Your words made me tear up a little. <3

3

topBunk87 t1_je5lnlc wrote

I really recommend Douglas Hofstadter's "I am a Strange Loop" (which is a quasi follow up to Godel, Escher, Bach). There is a section where he discussing how he handles the sudden passing of his wife, from a naturalistic view.

In his view (and my), who we are is the result of patterns in the brain. While this may seem rather unromantic and bleak, there is some comfort in it. As these patterns are formed through experience, the more shared experiences one has with another, the more someone understands another, the more those two people meld together. So if one of those persons passes on, much of their identiy, personality, and (really) self continues on in the other. To quote Hofstadter in the book:

"Along with Carol's desires, hopes and so on, her own personal sense of "I" is represented in my brain. Because I was so close to her, because I empathized so deeply with her, co-felt so many things with her, was so able to see things from inside her point of view when she spoke, whether it was her greatest joys or fondest hopes. Carol survives because her point of view survives...in my brain and those of others."

When we share stories and memories of lost loved ones, we aren't simply remembering them, we are breathing life into their very essence.

Very sorry for your loss. I hope maybe you can find some comfort in this.

2

jetoler t1_jdz3h9a wrote

I think it’s 2 halves coming together. People and your environment shapes you, but also I believe there’s an unchanging core to everyone too.

3

Mustelafan t1_je18i8s wrote

Am I the only one on this subreddit with an actual self-directed sense of identity? I can take inspiration here and there, sure, but ultimately the only one that paints on my canvas is me.

0

BowelMan t1_jdx6mb6 wrote

What if I'm lonely and don't have anybody?

13

dustywayfarer t1_je00nen wrote

Stop waiting for someone else to come along. Be that someone who comes alongside someone else.

3

Mikeinthedirt t1_jdxw43q wrote

I don’t think that’s possible. Maybe look a little higher, look a little farther. I know you have, to begin with, us. Your family, present or absent, wield those brushes every damn day. That goofy conductor on the train. The lady that voices ‘Bart Simpson’(It’s true! Bart’s trans!) You can’t avoid being illuminated, like a 13th century manuscript; it may not be what you envisioned (Spoiler Alert: NONE ARE) but it’s your rainbow to flaunt!

−4

qwedsa789654 t1_jdxyu84 wrote

wait how is lonely advice turn to female voiced male make them trans??

9

space_coconut t1_jdymo91 wrote

This is why I (and probably everyone else) try to cut toxic people out of our lives. Being toxic literally spreads to others and perpetuates the cycle of being a dick.

6

EarlyOrganization180 t1_jdynru1 wrote

I’ve heard a saying that you’re the product of the 5 people you spend the most time with. An oversimplification but along the same lines.

4

Fidodo t1_jdxbbgp wrote

Our minds are an imprint of the space and time our bodies have interacted with.

2

Tardis50 t1_jdzj521 wrote

Relationships are never easy, but you never, ever give up on stuff. That’s what makes you an amalgam.

2

Gregrom26 t1_jdyznku wrote

My senior quote was “I’m the living embodiment of everyone I’ve ever known” or something like that, we really are just those who have taught us everything

1

hideX98 t1_jdz4ovp wrote

One of the first times I was high on mushrooms I had this (from my point of view) incredibly deep realization that I don't actually know anyone, only how Ive related to the things they've said and done.

1

jacksraging_bileduct t1_jdw70e5 wrote

One thing I do feel, the more I try to understand the people around me, the more I understand about myself.

214

WaveCore t1_jdw7suw wrote

Of course, because your character is only tested through interactions with the people around you.

85

turbo_dude t1_jdy3jwr wrote

Guessing it’s the other way around for most people. Self awareness first.

5

blackstar_oli t1_jdynaba wrote

I believe most of our thoughts are subconsciously created from our environment.

Not all , more for some , less for others , but kinda like you'd never think of flowers if you never seen one.

I am too tired , I was going more for a brainstorm. Makes me think.

13

mcarterphoto t1_jdx4tx5 wrote

This relates a lot to thoughts I have about grief. Most people "read" others and have an idea of how to react - you can use the F-word with this guy, better not with this woman; as we know people better, some become close friends, but almost everyone we deal with, before long we have a "version" of us that's just for them. With some people, this version becomes very "rich", with shared memories and an intuitive, 2nd-nature way of interacting. I don't think these are necessarily "false" version of us, it's how we connect with others and form deeper bonds.

When we lose someone to death or even through events that de-attach us (like a romantic breakup), we lose the version of ourselves that was the version they interacted with. I feel that we don't acknowledge this loss - it's bad enough to realize someone we love is gone from our lives, but also a part of our selves no longer has a place, and lives only in our memories.

But I ain't got no college, I could be off here!

136

1234sc27 t1_jdy43ta wrote

Sometimes it hurts more to lose the version of yourself that they brought out. Especially if you really liked it.

29

dday33 t1_je0m4rk wrote

Your not off at all. I'm taking psychology 101 in college and the professor said exactly the same thing. We have different versions of our selves with different people, and when someone passes or we stop talking to them, that version of ourself dies too.

Maybe you should teach psychology lol.

7

mcarterphoto t1_je1bzoc wrote

That's funny - my wife has a PhD in anthropology, she's been a hard core Jung scholar for like 10 years, teaches yoga, etc. I'm a photographer who came up playing years in bar bands. But we sit around the fire with bottles of wine and talk about this stuff a lot. Match made in heaven! (I gotta say though, a yoga teacher who is not a vegetarian - also known as a "unicorn"!)

3

No_Percentage7306 t1_jdync2q wrote

Interesting, I think I've always thought this but never articulated it to myself.

6

IAI_Admin OP t1_jdvdx8l wrote

In this talk, philosopher Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad challenges the politically powerful notion of individualism via two Sakskrit concepts: TheSelf and The Person. Far from delivering on the moral imperatives it claims -tolerance and equality – individualism has contributed to a widespread inequality of expression of agency and values. But it is built on an incoherent sense of what makes us who we are. If the individual is defined via the concept of the self, as individualism appears to require, it is distinguishable from others formally, but lacks the rich interiority we hold makes us who we are. If we are to retain that rich inner life – all of our desires, experiences, memories etc - we do so via the concept of the person. But what defines a person is not their distinction from all others, but rather their intersectional connection with countless others.

64

Remix2Cognition t1_jdw7eyb wrote

> Far from delivering on the moral imperatives it claims -tolerance and equality –

No, it has never claimed that. Acknowledgement of differences, doesn't at all set a value system. Differences will create varying value. But how that's at all assessed is up to society. Individualism offers the idea that you can offer something that someone else can't. That you are unique. It doesn't propose what you can offer someone else will desire. And certainly not how it will compare to other offerings. Because that would require a compliance set on others.

Individualism is about being able to respect yourself regardless of others. Difference, nor inequality, nor intolerance are inherently negative features. They are often required to form any basis of a societal structure. What that society will value, given our varying individualistic desires, will create varying levels of value. To believe that there can exist an "equality" of value of a person as observed by others completely denies the philosphy of individualism. And instead forces some level of compliance on how people must perceive others which denies their own self.

> individualism has contributed to a widespread inequality of expression of agency and values.

It's only "contributed" to such as not being barrier to such. Individualism as a philosphy is a recognition that people are individuals. That different perceptions, experiences, etc. inherently create differences where any such value system that assesses such differences will be unequal. Not that inequality is bad, but that it's simply a function of the natural variance. Just as the cold isn't bad, but will harm an environment that doesn't value it. That no ecosystem is best, but they offer something different.

> But it is built on an incoherent sense of what makes us who we are.

No. Individualism isn't meant as a structure to state a "sense of who you are". It's not meant to be expressive toward others as as a social identity. Individualists can still relate to societal classifications as to illustrate a shared feature. It's simply the aspect of a "self" not being confined to any single label. That one's "identity" can't be shared, but certain elements of preference or behavior can. That you can't express to others "WHO you are", but you can explain varying features that make up you in a way for others to understand. If someone asked you "Who are you", how would you answer?

> But what defines a person is not their distinction from all others, but rather their intersectional connection with countless others.

And how do you claim a connection with others? Will others accept your claim? To claim some "intersectionality" you'd seemingly need to use your own perception to conclude exactly how others have arrived at their own understanding. You can ASK and VERIFY, but others many often reject your claim of association. So what then?

Sure, finding the commonality is how we can explain to others ourselves in a way they can then process and understand. But that's a process. That involves discussion. It involves explanations. It requires the unique, individual touch that a self-identity claim to a group label does not. It will be discovered that the "intersectionality connection" isn't the same, but enough similarities to grasp an understanding can be conveyed. And that's individualism. That the connections don't define you, but rather are used as a vehicle in a vague attempt to define yourself to others.

21

frogandbanjo t1_jdwc2k0 wrote

I'm inclined to agree with you that this guy's premises are largely misapprehensions. Once that's established, I'm not even sure it's necessary to argue further down the chain.

That being said, I think it's trivially easy to construct a competing thesis. If I were the only thing in my perceptual universe that looked or sounded anything like myself, I would feel pretty darn unique. My individuality would be a given. Surrounded by so many other entities that do look and sound similar to myself, my quest for individuality - should I choose to accept it - is going to necessarily involve asserting ways in which I am not like them. It's more difficult, and requires more digging (or more bullshitting, more likely,) but is it different in kind? It's just easier to point at a rock and say, "Welp, I'm not like that. I've got my own thing going on."

This guy's notion of individuality starts to sound more like a way to sort, catalog, and track. The people around us, our relationships to them, and even our similarities to them are coordinates and/or reference points.

16

Sansa_Culotte_ t1_jdx9x41 wrote

> Surrounded by so many other entities that do look and sound similar to myself, my quest for individuality - should I choose to accept it - is going to necessarily involve asserting ways in which I am not like them. It's more difficult, and requires more digging (or more bullshitting, more likely,) but is it different in kind? It's just easier to point at a rock and say, "Welp, I'm not like that. I've got my own thing going on."

This sounds pretty similar to Hegel's Phenomenology of the Mind - recognition as an individual only becomes necessary once we encounter other individuals; one impetus in this encounter is to reduce the Other to an object so that we remain unique in our individuality, but such individuality lacks the component of recognition, and so the Other becomes inherently linked to our own desire to be recognized as an individual of our own (as such recognition can only come from another individual).

7

Remix2Cognition t1_jdwodsg wrote

> Surrounded by so many other entities that do look and sound similar to myself, my quest for individuality - should I choose to accept it - is going to necessarily involve asserting ways in which I am not like them. It's more difficult, and requires more digging (or more bullshitting, more likely,) but is it different in kind?

See, I don't see it as seeking such, but observing such. That analysing similarities is inherently also analysing differences.

Let's say we could break down all features into a binary A or B. And that there were only 33 distinguished features to even note. So YOU may be made up of ABBBAABABAAABBBABBAAAABBBABBAAABB. If A and B have equal odds of existing, there is 1 individual out of the current 800 billion people on earth with such a makeup (based on odds). Or more accurately stated, there are more than 800 billion potential makeups with equal odds of occuring.

So if we can also identify that many features aren't determined by a binary, and that there are many millions more features than 33, even if odds are greater than 50% that people match up, it would seem to reason we will be unique, even while sharing similarities with some people in some areas. Because it involves also having differences with others. If you're concluding you are like another, there's likely "others" that are not. That you are like A, because B is something to be observed as something distinct.

Break down something as binary as sex. Do you not think fertilitity, size/shape/appearance of sexual characteritics, hormone levels, how such impacts development of physical features, specific social pressures on one's sex, etc. create entirely different experiences even among a group of males or females? I think it's pretty ignorant to limit your observation to male or female. I think it's only proper to view all the things that people can observe. I simply can't accept that people are naturally simply blind to differences and that only an acceptance of individualism opens one's eyes to such.

> It's just easier to point at a rock and say, "Welp, I'm not like that. I've got my own thing going on."

What I'm trying to argue is that "sadness" isn't ONE thing. That just because you've felt sadness doesn't mean you know how another actually feels even while expressing similar symptoms you did when you were sad. You can grasp a level of understanding, but you aren't the same as them in that capacity. Individualism isn't about denying similarities, it's denying being the same. That just because two people are "white/male/attractive/tall/outgoing/etc." doesn't mean they have experienced the same things as many other factors come into play for lived experiences and thus one's "identity".

> This guy's notion of individuality starts to sound more like a way to sort, catalog, and track. The people around us, our relationships to them, and even our similarities to them are coordinates and/or reference points.

And I'm accepting that. I just think categorizing oneself to another is a large assumption of others. Where even one's association to certain categorizations and labels is a unique personal perception. So what exactly am I claiming I share with others and what footing do I have to state such?

EDIT: When we limit our distinctions it allows for greater pockets of "sameness". Which inherently is oppositional to those of differences. This is what "contributes" to intolerance and inequality showcased by discrimination/segregation. When people identify amongst a group, then they can leverage the group to attack other groups. When you feel you are defined by such limiting structures, it creates a desire to "defend" and preserve that identity.

3

literallymetaphoric t1_jdwetdl wrote

Collectivists who dedicate their existences to defining others are certainly free to do so but I'm entirely capable of defining myself, thank you very much.

Cogito ergo sum.

20

xdeiz t1_jdx74qj wrote

If this is a joke it's pretty funny.

8

[deleted] t1_jdw8wq1 wrote

[deleted]

18

peritonlogon t1_jdwpeoa wrote

perhaps

17

[deleted] t1_jdwuv2m wrote

[deleted]

2

BIGR3D t1_jdwynuu wrote

Perhaps its either OR. Perhaps neither. Perhaps unknown. Just because you only offer two choices, doesnt mean we have to choose either of them.

3

[deleted] t1_jdx73ho wrote

[deleted]

5

Sansa_Culotte_ t1_jdxa7bm wrote

I mean, technically, you can't be more or less unique, only unique or not.

8

IllustriousSign4436 t1_je0k9w5 wrote

I mean, can't you approach uniqueness or stray farther away from it without touching it?

1

peritonlogon t1_je2d9qp wrote

Your thinking of similarity not uniqueness. Uniqueness means one of a kind, so it's binary.

1

IllustriousSign4436 t1_je2fmbb wrote

Ah I didn't mean it at all as the definition of uniqueness, but I think what I said is closer in intent according to what the above commenter wanted to ask.

1

KashTerry t1_jdxxd8v wrote

ya... these "perhaps" responses confuses me.

2

[deleted] t1_jdwnn7o wrote

I'd just like to say that's a fucking beautiful and enlightening title. Well done.

9

idkifimevilmeow t1_jdwe5qt wrote

I don't understand this kind of argument at all. What does being self-aware of your own traits and interests have to do with being like everyone else? I'd argue most people have scarily little awareness of their own traits and quirks. Infinitely more unique to confidently say what you know about yourself and acknowledge there are things you don't rather than hoping your relationships to others will teach you more about yourself. They often do, sure, but one thing that makes relationships easier and more worthwhile is when the participants know who they are and can establish clear personalities and boundaries.

8

Puzzlehead-Engineer t1_jdwvcuc wrote

One is all and all is one?

8

YogiBerraOfBadNews t1_jdxo4jy wrote

If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you. But if I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I, I am not I, and you are not you.

4

xdeiz t1_jdvzdp5 wrote

How is that a paradox.

7

superfuntime11 t1_jdw38xl wrote

The paradox lies in this fact: Our individuality is defined in our minds by the intersections of our individuality with others. To define all the things that make you you a person, one needs to define all these things through a lens of the person. It's a catch 22 where you can't define yourself without considering yourself as part of another whole.

38

lluluna t1_jdw5ujf wrote

In short, a person has no sense of uniqueness by themselves. Hence the paradox.

11

Nearby-Implement-870 t1_jdwyt2l wrote

You have restated that it is a paradox without explaining the contradiction. Uniqueness is a comparative measure, of course it can't be established without comparison.

9

McDoof t1_jdxb148 wrote

I see it as less of a paradox and more as a counterintuitive claim. I first encountered a similar idea myself through discussions of "memory." In cultural anthropology (cf. Halbwachs, Assmann) some thinkers claim that (cultural) memory is social and cannot exist in an isolated individual.

7

Dantien t1_jdw69mx wrote

“Easy, Paradox, we are all on the same team.”

5

xdeiz t1_jdx7h4m wrote

Paradox is when my head goes hmm

3

rafikievergreen t1_jdxouqw wrote

Many things make you unique. Your location in time and space, for example.

Your relationships compose the dialectical matrix of social extensions and affects you have. These are part of what makes you unique, but definitely not the whole story.

7

PinealFever t1_jdyevtn wrote

Hume laughs at your weak propositions.

There simply is NO self.

4

BerkelMarkus t1_jdzaa8m wrote

How is this paradoxical in any way? The more clearly you try to define cold, the more clearly that definition is tied to heat.

Plus, this is a completely obvious result from social networks (not the Faceshit and Twitshit nonsense) but from mathematical models as far back as the 40’s. We can individuate; ie identify, people based on their social network.

4

rattatally t1_jdwrwdd wrote

Accept that your nobody and free yourself from other people.

3

Jonsnow2017 t1_jdxa85b wrote

Facts. I gather all my South American slang / saying and use it to my liking. I’m now everything I know

3

Turevaryar t1_jdxe8dd wrote

Could this be a divide, such as introvert/extrovert?

I am pretty sure I am self reflective but detached (not embedded) from others.

3

JustAPerspective t1_jdwy2bv wrote

Check of Theory: Those who care not what others think about them would value that input less.

Instead of fixating about how others perceive one, focus instead on what one does that affects others... & the perception should handle itself.

2

TimelessGlassGallery t1_jdynr1r wrote

No, what makes you unique is the relationship between your consciousness and the physical reality, including your brain and body.

2

funklab t1_jdyp8o6 wrote

Like the man said on the Blue Scholars track “we hardly know ourselves if we know nobody else.”

2

Lenguenyal t1_jdz21eb wrote

Don’t conform to other people’s standards. You won’t like those people in the eventual future.

2

Talosian_cagecleaner t1_je1egsa wrote

Well, the more we think we are embedded in others. Perhaps. Some feel the self is already an illusion, so there is that. In any event, we aren't actually "embedded" in anything. It's a figure of speech. We do not have any adequate language to describe what "happens" to us. Yet here we are. Discussing our well-being.

Which is why this reddit is mainly speculative philosophy, not philosophy per se. Actually, speculative is incorrect. Not much speculation in the philosophical sense. So even better might be "r/ philosophy and self-help."

Mods: think about it.

&#x200B;

I seldom see posts here doing critiques of these first-level reflective operations and their alleged conclusions.

We have no idea who or what we are. But we think we must, or should, or do. And as to other people, you will have to prove they are real, and in what manner, before I entertain *philosophically* the notion I am "embedded" in them.

It could be, "other people" is the greatest McGuffin ever invented. We simply can't know. We are in the system, not outside of it. That's a fact. Helps to start with it.

2

[deleted] t1_jdve20a wrote

[removed]

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_jdveamk wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_jdvedie wrote

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

xNonPartisaNx t1_jdx5ust wrote

Tat tvam asi

What do you mean "other people"?

1

GG-ez-no-rere t1_jdxskcn wrote

Can we not choose an identity and tell others to perceive us as such?

1

dustywayfarer t1_je011tx wrote

That would still only be bright stripe of purple paint from a very flamboyant someone else.

1

hacktheself t1_jdxwp04 wrote

We’re taught we’re all special unique snowflakes, forgetting that we’re all just weirdly shaped water.

The snowflake seeks to be cherished and preserved in its beauty. The water wants to be part of the avalanche or flood.

1

shruggedbeware t1_jdy0dvn wrote

Really thinking about or considering one's identity intently makes one have to create things about it, express it or otherwise relate what it's like to be you into words or sounds or images or other sensory things; in order to be unique among many people, there have to be other people around blah blah blah.....lol

1

ui10 t1_jdy5bbf wrote

I think the metaphor of Indra's Net is apt at capturing the difficulties of self-definition/identification. It's a non-essentialist view.

1

DDLJ_2022 t1_jdy7oix wrote

The title is what the jist of Sikhism is all about.

1

Non_wave99 t1_jdyihyu wrote

Like if I become “anti-social” I am actually involving everyone I don’t socialize with in my identity?

1

dustywayfarer t1_je01aag wrote

The opposite is still in relationship with its object. Negative is still in relationship with positive. Anti-social people often are simply reacting to others, just as if they were interacting with them.

1

Perma_SSBM t1_jdyl0a1 wrote

An amalgam by predisposition. I wandered. Paradoxically, while I am unique. I am me. There may only be 1 of me. One of my particles. I have but a single point of potential relation. My consciousness, is your consciousness, as I perceive it.

1

DSEAUX t1_jdym1q5 wrote

Nothing except that one little detail

1

papa-teacher t1_jdym8sd wrote

So what you're saying, is that I'm not unique because I don't have many relationships? Since I'm not embedded in others' lives, I've no identity?

1

KeepItNonfiction0822 t1_jdyp0d0 wrote

I was told one time that our life is like a boat, and the people we have on that boat will either sink it, or help it float. But you obviously can’t let the ship sink. A lesson I remembered far too late at one time.

1

Pathos14489 t1_jdyrjm1 wrote

As someone who has like one friend and doesn't really interact with many people and infact am nothing like my friend, I highly disagree with this extrovert propaganda.

1

GalaXion24 t1_jdyzlns wrote

I mean we conventionally talk of different aspects of ourselves in seeking to define ourselves, but those are generally accidental or mutable. I wouldn't place any of it as some sort of "core of my being". If I want to cut away all that is frivolous and talk about me, then I can say this: I am. That defines me, being a unique existing entity. Unique in that I am not you and you are not me.

1

Zondartul t1_jdz0c1m wrote

Not something I thought of before, but obviously true in hindsight. Uniqueness is, by definition, a relation object A has to similar objects B1...Bx. The relation being that A is only one in that group that has a certain set of properties.

So you can he unique among all the people, but you can't be "just unique".

Now, whether the culture of "be unique" and the need to distinguish yourself from other people makes sense, is an entirely different discussion.

1

DiploJ t1_jdz1wau wrote

You have to relate to stand out.

1

Epinnoia t1_jdzd28x wrote

You're unique!! Just like everyone else! ;)

1

BomberRURP t1_jdzktou wrote

There is no I without an Other. Hegel was right

1

DeathByLemmings t1_jdzn77p wrote

Very much reminds me of the book, I Am A Strange Loop

1

Acrobatic-Fox9220 t1_jdztw3a wrote

You are everyone you’ve ever met in your life….Ancient saying

1

ResoluteClover t1_je15ah8 wrote

This was one of the themes of annihilation.

1

coleorcutt t1_je19j28 wrote

People are like onions- made of only layers, no center

1

No_Contest_7670 t1_je8trvo wrote

This is why I (and probably everyone else) try to cut toxic people out of our lives. Being toxic literally spreads to others and perpetuates the cycle of being a dick.

1

snocown t1_jdx8fcj wrote

That's only if you're lucky and take a path of this world. If you're a fuck up like me and break it all down you become your own person at the loss of everything within this construct. But since you're now an open book, you can do whatever you want if you put your mind to it, that's because reality is signals being sent to the brain.

−1

Skyreaper71 t1_jdxc2hs wrote

I am an unoriginal figure which regurgitates what it has digested and seen.

−1