Identity Crisis: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Identity Crisis » Identity Crisis

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Identity Crisis

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

Posted 10/15/09 - 06:08 AM:	#31
reincarnated wrote: – but how do we then address this problem? Must we accept that the concept of sameness simply IS slippery, plastic, vague and ambiguous, no matter how much we try to refine it and pin it down? Or can we pin it down in more rigorous definitions which allow us to avoid the ambiguity, without defining it out of existence altogether? ... It seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with our intuitive ideas of identity and “sameness”, and the problems we have coming to grips with pinning down what “sameness” actually means is evidence that there is something wrong. I think that people's concept and use of "same" and "different" and "identical" (as well as "alike") is commonly vague, ambiguous, imprecise. There is no unanimously agreed upon precise meaning for these terms--but all we have to do is to ask for clarification whenever someone uses them. If someone asserts that "A and B are the same" (or identical or different or alike), all we have to do to disambiguate the claim is ask what aspects (what predicates) they actually have in mind. Inevitably, since it's impossible for things to be exhaustively the same (or different) some possible predicates are included, and some are ignored. Those included are what that person judges to be the relevant predicates for his purposes. But IS he the same guy? This is the whole point. He might be a completely reformed character now, with a different personality. If we believed that people are always the same and never change then why do we ever release offenders from jail – if they are the same as when they were first locked up then surely they will simply commit the same offences again? Besides specifying the aspects they have in mind, what else can anyone say but that he's the same guy in some aspects and a different guy in other aspects? I get the feeling there's a spooky REALLY IS stalking this issue.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

mutemaler
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 664

Posted 10/15/09 - 01:09 PM:	#32
reincarnated wrote: There is an apple on the left side of my desk. If I pick up the apple and move it to the right side, is the apple which is now on the right side of my desk identical with the one that was previously on the left side?... It makes things easier to just note that the "that" over there (what we "apple") never stays the same period. You pointed that out in detail. What stays the same is the pattern we use, the word apple, it (the pattern) is the identity, it is not necessary for it to be "in" that thing over there at all, only that it stays sufficiently constant and/or recognizable to apple it successfully. When you move it to the other side of the table and ask "is that the same apple" the formulation is odd to me. Because you have an instance of patterning something, and are then asking if the second instance of patterning refers to the original object. But it has nothing to do with the object itself staying the same or not (it does not), not even whether it is the same pattern (it is), but more whether the second instance refers to the same object as the first instance. In this case yes, clearly, since you yourself put it from one side on the desk to the other. I don't see any real crisis of identity involved. I think part of the problem is that our tradition holds language to be fundamentally descriptive. And you can avoid the problems this creates by seeing language as "carving up the world", as fundamentally prescriptive. The apple "is" not red, we red it. Edited by mutemaler on 10/15/09 - 01:14 PM

Jehu
Revealer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2006

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 883

Posted 10/15/09 - 05:46 PM:	#33
reincarnated wrote: OK, to take an example, what exactly is the “self” you refer to which is “real” and which underlies the appearance of Socrates, which endures through the lifetime of Socrates? Can we pin it down? The nature of existence is essentially cognizant, and so comprises two interdependent and complementary elements, one of which is real (absolute), and one of which is merely apparent (relative). That which is real I call ‘awareness’, and that which is only apparent, I call ‘knowledge’; however, it must be understood that these are not what the elements are, but merely what I have chosen to call them, for we cannot speak of them without that they first have a name and a definition. Awareness, though it is that which makes it possible that anything can be perceived or imagined, cannot itself be perceived or imagined, for it is devoid of any quality. Because it partakes of an absolute existence, it is not dependent upon any other, and so is forever immutable (being); and it is this immutable awareness that endures from one moment to the next. Knowledge, on the other hand, as it partakes of only a relative existence, is fully dependent upon other things, and so abides in a state of perpetual flux (becoming). This is the point I still do not get. How do you make the leap from “each thing is the same with itself” (ie looking at individual instances of “things”) to “the nature of ALL things is numerically identical” (ie concluding that all “things” are numerically identical)? As all things derive their existence from the field of awareness wherein they are perceived or imagined, and given that all fields of awareness are undifferentiable one from another, it follows that all fields of awareness are fundamentally one and the same field. This is analogous to the dream state, wherein everything that appears in the dream, including the dream persona who appears to experience the dream, are nothing more than the awareness of the sleeping mind operating upon the subjective knowledge of the dreamer. Thus it may be said that everything in the dream is the same with itself (in its existence) , but different from another (in its essence).
It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is the true reality.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/16/09 - 08:31 AM:	#34
brainpharte wrote: I think that people's concept and use of "same" and "different" and "identical" (as well as "alike") is commonly vague, ambiguous, imprecise. There is no unanimously agreed upon precise meaning for these terms--but all we have to do is to ask for clarification whenever someone uses them. If someone asserts that "A and B are the same" (or identical or different or alike), all we have to do to disambiguate the claim is ask what aspects (what predicates) they actually have in mind. Inevitably, since it's impossible for things to be exhaustively the same (or different) some possible predicates are included, and some are ignored. Those included are what that person judges to be the relevant predicates for his purposes. I agree 100%. But doesn’t this suggest that the whole idea of (Kripke’s) “rigid designators” is just so much “wishful thinking”, and is wrongheaded and unworkable? Basically what you are saying (and I agree) is that whether A is judged the same as B (or not) is “subjectively dependent” on the criteria that one uses to judge “sameness”. There IS no objective criterion to judge sameness (since numerical identity does not apply to physical objects) – the only criteria we can use are our personal preferences. But if sameness is judged on the basis of personal preferences then it necessarily becomes subjective – so how can we claim “rigid designators”? brainpharte wrote: Besides specifying the aspects they have in mind, what else can anyone say but that he's the same guy in some aspects and a different guy in other aspects? Agreed. Which again reinforces my contention that “sameness” is subjective, which in turn implies that so-called “rigid” designators are actually quite floppy and flexible. mutemaler wrote: It makes things easier to just note that the "that" over there (what we "apple") never stays the same period. You pointed that out in detail. What stays the same is the pattern we use, the word apple, it (the pattern) is the identity, it is not necessary for it to be "in" that thing over there at all, only that it stays sufficiently constant and/or recognizable to apple it successfully. But all this means is that we can identify “an apple” – but not necessarily the SAME apple. If the pattern of an apple was enough to specify the identity of an apple, then all apples would be numerically identical. The word “apple” picks out certain criteria which allow us to (vaguely and approximately) identify certain objects which satisfy these criteria, but these criteria are insufficient to pick out one particular apple. The problem is that when we want to pick out “one particular apple” we then fall into subjectivity. mutemaler wrote: When you move it to the other side of the table and ask "is that the same apple" the formulation is odd to me. Because you have an instance of patterning something, and are then asking if the second instance of patterning refers to the original object. But it has nothing to do with the object itself staying the same or not (it does not), not even whether it is the same pattern (it is), but more whether the second instance refers to the same object as the first instance. In this case yes, clearly, since you yourself put it from one side on the desk to the other. I don't see any real crisis of identity involved. OK, that’s fine. But what about the other questions in the OP? Is the apple plus fingerprint identical with the original? Is the apple with a small piece of skin removed identical with the original? Is the bruised apple identical with the original? What kinds of changes are we allowed to make to the apple before this identity relation is lost? mutemaler wrote: I think part of the problem is that our tradition holds language to be fundamentally descriptive. And you can avoid the problems this creates by seeing language as "carving up the world", as fundamentally prescriptive. And subjective. Jehu wrote: The nature of existence is essentially cognizant, and so comprises two interdependent and complementary elements, one of which is real (absolute), and one of which is merely apparent (relative). That which is real I call ‘awareness’, and that which is only apparent, I call ‘knowledge’; however, it must be understood that these are not what the elements are, but merely what I have chosen to call them, for we cannot speak of them without that they first have a name and a definition. Awareness, though it is that which makes it possible that anything can be perceived or imagined, cannot itself be perceived or imagined, for it is devoid of any quality. Because it partakes of an absolute existence, it is not dependent upon any other, and so is forever immutable (being); and it is this immutable awareness that endures from one moment to the next. Knowledge, on the other hand, as it partakes of only a relative existence, is fully dependent upon other things, and so abides in a state of perpetual flux (becoming). Sorry, but how does this answer my question? What exactly is the “self” you refer to which is “real” and which underlies the appearance of Socrates, which endures through the lifetime of Socrates? To say “awareness” does not help, since all humans are aware, but not all humans are Socrates. Jehu wrote: As all things derive their existence from the field of awareness wherein they are perceived or imagined, and given that all fields of awareness are undifferentiable one from another, it follows that all fields of awareness are fundamentally one and the same field. All fields of awareness are undifferentiatable one from another? I don’t think so. I can differentiate my “field of awareness” of things which are Socrates from my “field of awareness” of things which are apples.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")