Self Identity
I haven't seen the movie Anger Management in its entirety. The combination of Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler just looks way too awkward and forced to me. Still, for some reason, I caught a clip of it on TV once where Adam Sandler's character, Dave, has his first session of anger management group therapy with Jack Nicholson, and something about their exchange stuck with me even to this day.
JACK NICHOLSON: So Dave tell us about yourself. Who are you?
ADAM SANDLER: Well, I'm an executive assistant at a major pet products company...
JACK: Dave I don't want you to tell us what you do I want you to tell us who you are.
ADAM: Oh. Alright. I'm a pretty good guy. I like playing tennis on occaision...
JACK: Also, not your hobbies, Dave. Just simple. Tell us who you are.
ADAM: Um, I'm a nice, easygoing man. I might be a little bit indecisive at times...
JACK: Dave, you're describing your personality. I want to know who you are!
That question, Who are you?, is a very thorny question, when you get right down to it. Like Adam Sandler's character above, people try to define themselves by their work, their hobbies, their behavior, etc. But as Jack Nicholson's character points out, do these really answer the question? What is identity, anyway?
According to Wikipedia, Identity is whatever makes something the same or different, and discusses "identity" with the notion of "equality". So what does it mean for something to be "the same" or "equal"?
Mathematics is, in a way, obsessed with equality and identity. The first four Peano axioms (out of nine total), which define basic arithmetic as we know it, are all focused on defining the notion of equality/identity. The very first of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, the foundation of all modern mathematics, is about the notion of equality.
That's all well and good in the realm of pure mathematics, but what about out in the "real world"? In physics, there is the concept of identical particles, such as the electron, wherein two separate electrons cannot be physically distinguished from each other except for their location in time and space. But because of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, if two electrons pass "too close" to one another, you cannot physically tell which one is which afterwards! But then, at what "level" do entities become able to be physically distinguished?
One of the greatest problems with applying the mathematical/physical concept of identity to the real world is that things tend to change over time, yet we still ascribe to them a continuation of identity. This leads to philosophical problems like the Ship of Theseus, which I've discussed before.
Still, all of our discourse, at least what I've been exposed to, tends to take for granted that each of us has one continuous identity. There seems to be an instinctive, reflexive, almost primal sense of self. At best, some people will admit that there are different facets of their personality: one for work, one for family, one for friends, etc, but most assume that there is a "core person" underneath. It forms the basis for much of Western science and culture. One body = one identity = the basic unit of "natural rights".
But is this a sound assumption?
I've been pondering a post on this topic for some time now, but I was inspired to write it today when I saw this blog post linked to from the Liberty sub-reddit claiming that "Society cannot act or have rights. Only individuals can act and have rights." And I asked: Why? Again, the author just takes it for granted that "individuals" are the basic unit of action and natural rights. The word, individual, means "indivisible" after all. But it the same way that "atom" meant "indivisible" but was since found to actually be divisible into constituent parts, I think an "individual" likewise can be divided into a whole Society of Mind.
It's not that I believe that Collectivism (the usual alternative to individualism) is right. It's that I don't like the definitions of either individualism OR collectivism. They're not talking about "real" things; only "conventional truths". Instead, "identity", both at the "individual" level AND at the "society" level (and every other possible level beyond and in-between) is an "emergent concept" arising from the interdependence of the complexity of our world.
So how should Adam Sandler's character have answered Jack Nicholson's character in "Anger Management"? Maybe something along the lines of:
JACK: Who are you?
ADAM: I am an illusion imagining itself to be an indivisible entity, arising from the interdependence of everything in the universe, the sum total of all of my experiences and my memories thereof.
Maybe then it would have been better received by critics ;-)
As a postscript tangent: It's funny how I've never had any formal education in Buddhism (I've never even read a book on the subject), but as I trawl Wikipedia in one of my philosophizing moods, I continually end up on pages for Buddhist concepts. Other philosophies that rate highly include Ancient Greek Stoicism, and the Quakers when I'm exploring more religious ideas. Some things to explore, I suppose :-)
JACK NICHOLSON: So Dave tell us about yourself. Who are you?
ADAM SANDLER: Well, I'm an executive assistant at a major pet products company...
JACK: Dave I don't want you to tell us what you do I want you to tell us who you are.
ADAM: Oh. Alright. I'm a pretty good guy. I like playing tennis on occaision...
JACK: Also, not your hobbies, Dave. Just simple. Tell us who you are.
ADAM: Um, I'm a nice, easygoing man. I might be a little bit indecisive at times...
JACK: Dave, you're describing your personality. I want to know who you are!
That question, Who are you?, is a very thorny question, when you get right down to it. Like Adam Sandler's character above, people try to define themselves by their work, their hobbies, their behavior, etc. But as Jack Nicholson's character points out, do these really answer the question? What is identity, anyway?
According to Wikipedia, Identity is whatever makes something the same or different, and discusses "identity" with the notion of "equality". So what does it mean for something to be "the same" or "equal"?
Mathematics is, in a way, obsessed with equality and identity. The first four Peano axioms (out of nine total), which define basic arithmetic as we know it, are all focused on defining the notion of equality/identity. The very first of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, the foundation of all modern mathematics, is about the notion of equality.
That's all well and good in the realm of pure mathematics, but what about out in the "real world"? In physics, there is the concept of identical particles, such as the electron, wherein two separate electrons cannot be physically distinguished from each other except for their location in time and space. But because of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, if two electrons pass "too close" to one another, you cannot physically tell which one is which afterwards! But then, at what "level" do entities become able to be physically distinguished?
One of the greatest problems with applying the mathematical/physical concept of identity to the real world is that things tend to change over time, yet we still ascribe to them a continuation of identity. This leads to philosophical problems like the Ship of Theseus, which I've discussed before.
Still, all of our discourse, at least what I've been exposed to, tends to take for granted that each of us has one continuous identity. There seems to be an instinctive, reflexive, almost primal sense of self. At best, some people will admit that there are different facets of their personality: one for work, one for family, one for friends, etc, but most assume that there is a "core person" underneath. It forms the basis for much of Western science and culture. One body = one identity = the basic unit of "natural rights".
But is this a sound assumption?
I've been pondering a post on this topic for some time now, but I was inspired to write it today when I saw this blog post linked to from the Liberty sub-reddit claiming that "Society cannot act or have rights. Only individuals can act and have rights." And I asked: Why? Again, the author just takes it for granted that "individuals" are the basic unit of action and natural rights. The word, individual, means "indivisible" after all. But it the same way that "atom" meant "indivisible" but was since found to actually be divisible into constituent parts, I think an "individual" likewise can be divided into a whole Society of Mind.
It's not that I believe that Collectivism (the usual alternative to individualism) is right. It's that I don't like the definitions of either individualism OR collectivism. They're not talking about "real" things; only "conventional truths". Instead, "identity", both at the "individual" level AND at the "society" level (and every other possible level beyond and in-between) is an "emergent concept" arising from the interdependence of the complexity of our world.
So how should Adam Sandler's character have answered Jack Nicholson's character in "Anger Management"? Maybe something along the lines of:
JACK: Who are you?
ADAM: I am an illusion imagining itself to be an indivisible entity, arising from the interdependence of everything in the universe, the sum total of all of my experiences and my memories thereof.
Maybe then it would have been better received by critics ;-)
As a postscript tangent: It's funny how I've never had any formal education in Buddhism (I've never even read a book on the subject), but as I trawl Wikipedia in one of my philosophizing moods, I continually end up on pages for Buddhist concepts. Other philosophies that rate highly include Ancient Greek Stoicism, and the Quakers when I'm exploring more religious ideas. Some things to explore, I suppose :-)