Who Are You, Really?

Forums: Philosophy, Identity
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Who you really are,(i.e.,what your defining personality is), is who all relevant persons in your life perceive you to be, ....not who you believe yourself to be. Do you agree with this thesis?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,891 • Replies: 135

No top replies

I can certainly see why you would make that assertion, but NO, the idealist in me refuses.

If my essence is unknown, undiscovered or rejected as honest and perverted by others--even by all others, that doesn't change my motivations, my true intentions and the essence of my being.

So, if an old man is seen as miserly and cold--and none know of his quiet contributions to X, his visits to Y--do their judgements stand? And if they don't know of the secrets he keeps for others...? Many people who don't inform their left hand of the 'kindnesses' of their right are forever unsung.

You are what you are. To Hell with the perceptions of others.

<Good question>

0 Replies

Unless your defining personality is something that requires an intervention, I say no, be yourself and feck what others think.

0 Replies

I'm just a figment of your imagination and mine most of the time Wink

0 Replies

The views of others are always incomplete - they are not with us all the time.

However, the way in which we see ourselves can be very slanted. Being critically honest of oneself is rare. Denial is a very common condition!

On balance, I think I know myself better than anyone else knows me, partly because I've spent a fair amount of my life wondering about who I am and what I think. No one else has ever been as interested in me as I am!

To indicate what defining characteristics I have would be to put this in terms of comparison with others, which is something that others may do better than me...because they can compare Peter to Paul and Pamela, etc...all of whom are third parties to them.

...but why should I care if they think I'm "arrogant", for example? If I think I'm damn good, I'm not going to criticise myself for it! Laughing

0 Replies

Alikimir thesis refers to one's SOCIAL IDENTITY, the public side of one's image. One's PRIVATE IDENTITY may differ completely. There are so many problems with both versions of the self. As someone has noted here, if some people perceive you to be X and others Y, and still others Z, and if X,Y,and Z are mutually incompatible, where is the reality? On the other hand, most people develop their self-perception and self-esteem as a function of their sense of how others see them (the so-called looking glass theory of the self, Cooley). My conclusion is that it's all a matter of problematical constructions of the self, by one's self and by many others. I think I'll just hire a press agent. Laughing

The mystical orientation holds that it's all illusory, that one is in reality The Universe, or a moving expression of Ultimate Reality, but he, inevitabaly, defines himself only with reference to socially or culturally constructed ideas and values.

0 Replies

JL, Alikimir didn't state his thesis quite as eloquently as you have. He asked only if our 'defining identity' is based on what others who are relevent in our lives think of us. To me, 'relevent' people would certainly include family, friends and spouses, which makes the distinction between 'social' and 'private' personas a bit blurry.

0 Replies

If there are no others, then I am not, too?

Relative

0 Replies

If a husband makes a statement in a forest
and his wife is not there to hear him,
is he still wrong?

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

... He asked only if our 'defining identity' is based on what others who are relevent in our lives think of us...

But what is a "defining" personality?

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

To me, 'relevent' people would certainly include family, friends and spouses, which makes the distinction between 'social' and 'private' personas a bit blurry.

In the context JL is referring to "social" is anyone but yourself and "private" is you and only you.

0 Replies

Okay. Points well taken. It still remains a conundrum, but I would lean towards the 'private' as defining, and the 'social' as simply 'private lite', so I still do not agree with the original thesis.

0 Replies

All your replies contain insights that are worthy of great consideration, and needless to say, are very much appreciated .
However, if one of you think , or voice the statement that he or she is one of the world's greatest lovers, who should I consult to verify this position ......the person who believes this or the
lovers themselves? And as for the person who stands on the street corner proclaiming he is Jesus
Christ....maybe I should talk to his psychiatrist?

0 Replies

alikimr wrote:

All your replies contain insights that are worthy of great consideration, and needless to say, are very much appreciated .
However, if one of you think , or voice the statement that he or she is one of the world's greatest lovers, who should I consult to verify this position ......the person who believes this or the
lovers themselves? And as for the person who stands on the street corner proclaiming he is Jesus
Christ....maybe I should talk to his psychiatrist?

Well, as for anyone who claims to be the world's greatest lover, you must consult the people they have slept with, and confirm all positions. As for the person on the street proclaiming to be Jesus, if they were the true incarnation of him, I would suspect that they would have had come up with a better plan than yelling scripture out of a refrigerator box with whiskey in their hands. Now....this new post of yours kind of turns the discussion into another topic altogether. What is it exactly you want to discuss?

0 Replies

Cav, you are referring to what sociologists call "significant others" and "reference groups." Those who count and those you make reference to in anticipating how your actions will be received by others (who count). The rest don't matter.

But I agree with Relative: It's all relative.

0 Replies

It depends whether you are defined by being or doing.

To be is to do
-or-
To do is to be
-or-
Do be do be do

One's essential self manifests in a different way to that person and to those who are affected by that person. But the essential self, while the source of those manifestations, is independent of them. Is true and complete knowledge of another possible? Surely not. Is true and complete knowledge of one's own self possible? Doubtful. Are George's ruminations to be taken seriously? Of course not.

0 Replies

Well George, I prefer do be do be do, which I take quite seriously, even though it's only because I owe money to the mob.

JL, Relative has a very appropriate name indeed. I still maintain that the private 'you' is what defines, and the rest is a strange sort of politics. The private, the unknowable, is where your true spirit lies.

0 Replies

Cav, I agree. The way I define or perceive myself is more important to me than the way I am defined by others. But both types of definition don't touch the REAL "me." That real "me" is not a self-perception; it is not something--as Tywvel has emphasized--"I" can see.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Cav, I agree. The way I define or perceive myself is more important to me than the way I am defined by others. But both types of definition don't touch the REAL "me." That real "me" is not a self-perception; it is not something--as Tywvel has emphasized--"I" can see.

I would concur, JL. All forms of self-perception are full of half-truths and outside influence.

0 Replies

...full of half-truths and outside flatulence. Right.

0 Replies

Who Are You, Really?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know