- christian ornelas
- Northridge, CA
- United States
This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What makes you, you?
I am thirteen and we had this question today as a warm up and I found it very interesting
This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
I am thirteen and we had this question today as a warm up and I found it very interesting
Linda Woodard
"I am part of all that I have met;
Yet all experience is an arch wherethrough
Gleams that untravelled world, whose margin fades
For ever and for ever when I move."
And in my long life, I have found this to be true.
Scott Armstrong 50+
I don't think the answer is in the past and I'm not sure it's a goal to be achieved either.
Lots of people will argue that it's all down to genes.
Others will say it's the environment you grow up in.
In the end, none of that matters. Know thyself - it's easier said than done!
Keep asking..
christian ornelas
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
but is it a dichotomy"? is it either or?
Or is it posible there is an essential true unique nature in each us and that what happens arounds us, how we interpret and engage that is constantly either thwarting or nurturing that inner self?
christian ornelas
Scott Armstrong 50+
The thing people generally miss about science is that it is just one of the more popular ways we currently use to try to understand our world.
The Nature vs Nurture argument is the same as Freewill vs Predestiny, just in different clothes.
I believe it is both and neither at the same time. Confusing, I know, but not a cop out.
Whatever you choose to believe is real.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
see my further explanation below. I am saying it is not "either or" ( a dichotomy) .it is both.
I am saying we have an inborn natture, our true self that we come into this world with that is uqniuely our own..has its own unique fulfillment and I believe is needed in this world.
that nurture ( and expereience and teaching and peers..the music we hear, the art we see, the movies we see, the books we read..all we engage as culture interacts with that from the moment we are born and either furthers our fulfillment and ufolding of this "true self" or masques and represses it.
I am saying we have some ability to shape what we engage..by avoidance, by aacceptance, by questioning, by feeling how things"fit" with our own sense of self..we ourselvescan be active paricpatnts in either unfolding that "true self",the natural self..or being passive and just "taking on" and "taking in" what ever goes on around us.
Does that make sense to you?
PS Ilove your ID logo..did you design it.? And I also love that you are here.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
In otherwords, I believe there is much more to "self" , that the most imporant part of self is inate that self isn't just what we acquire and learn.
Does that not rest wwell with you?
Muhammad Aizat Zainal Alam 30+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
.In all of us I think there is a" me " that is really "me"
.I even think that core self may be what we come with .. I see that in infants and in very tiny children..they seem to be a complete kit and that unique "self" just shines right through from the git go.
Life seems to be about how that core self, that "real me" engages with, or is engaged by, the world as we grow up, about whether that real self is able to unfold and speak and take its unique place in the world, the place where that unique self is truly needed and truly fits, or whether it is crushed, repressed, distorted and pushed back from unfolding.
.When I let that "true self" take the wheel, be in charge, speak I feel most whole.My true self is very strong, it has had a strong voice from my earliest memories..But after 65 years I cannot truly say I know that true self or could described it fully. At best I could say a few things about its major qualities but I cannot say I truly know it. I am grateful when it speaks. I am grateful when it is recognized and valued by others. I am grateful for every experience that cultivates its unfolding
.What do you think?
Ray Anon
What can I say? I don't believe in a "me". What exists are different elements that interact with each other, come into existence and vanish again.
Have you ever heard of the "Ship of Theseus"? Imagine that this ship gets repaired over time until every part has been renewed. Is it still the same ship? To make it more difficult, imagine that a new ship gets constructed out of the old parts. Which is the "real" ship now? The repaired one? The new old one? Both? None? In my opinion, the concept of continuing identity is flawed in the first place. Wasn't the ship already different after changing one plank? In fact, wasn't the ship already different after suffering the tiniest scratch?
There is an elegant way to solve this problem. What if objects (and subjects!) not only exist in three spatial dimensions, but also a fourth temporal dimension? In that case, the ship is rather a series of moments (in time) of three-dimensional properties (in space). Three-dimensional time-slices, if you want. And each of these slices differ from each other. So the ship never stayed the same in the first place, instead it changed from moment to moment. At best one can agree to view a certain amount of certain three-dimensional time-slices to be connected, thereby identifying a fourth-dimensional object.
With that in mind, what makes me me? I can answer this for the moment with a set of attributes, emotions, thoughts, values, but any attempt at defining me as a fourth-dimensional subject is tricky. What if I have changed drastically in the past years? If I went back in time and met my former self, I might feel less related to him than to a close friend who shares my values and way of thinking. Or put it the other way round: What if there is a person who is closer to my 18-year-old-personality than I am now? Isn't he more "18-me" than I am? Surely not in regards to biological kinship or molecular causality, but why should I view these as the defining characteristics?
Truls Bakke
Is it correct if I argue that It looks as if you try to explain all this based on your view of other things, And that you are trying to explain your own self from a "what makes them, them" perspective, which cannot be done, again since "they" and "you" exist in two different realities. "what makes them them perspective is based on your construction of the world, but what makes you, you is based on you construction of you own experience of the world.
I must apologize if I did not understand you correctly. I also apologize if you don't understand what I mean. This is like you said, "tricky" to explain.
Debra Smith 100+
Thanks for asking this penetrating question.
After studying in a variety of areas and living a while, I think that what makes me me is my schemas. These are the mental structures that I have built throughout my life, as we all do, through which we sift and interpret every experience. In the main, they determine every action, our character and the way we present our selves to others.
Truls Bakke
One can also argue that you are the constant consciousness that all experiences and thoughts arises in.
One can argue that for other people, you are your body and your actions.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Truls Bakke
There is a differene between "what makes me, me" and "what makes them, them". When the title of this conversation is "what makes you you" One can take different approaches:
1 - I see other people, and then try to define what I see
2 - I see my self, and try to define what I see
When I take 1, I can define other people based on my experiences of them, but I can never define them by how they experience the world because that is out of my reach. That is the difference between 1 and 2
When I take 2, I can think that I am Jesus, I can actually think I am whatever I choose. I can also think that I am the constant consciousness that all experiences and thoughts arises in. I can always try to make some grand map of my own self. I can use whatever I want to make this map. I can call it names like schemas, memes or whatever.
Some people thinks that this self-created self is an illusion because every time they try to make a map, they see that the terrain is something completely different. Like peeling an onion, they peel their own self/ego/identity until it's nothing left but awareness.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
christian ornelas
Simone Lackerbauer 100+
Simone Lackerbauer 100+
Christopher Scheidler 20+
Farrukh Yakubov 50+