How do YOU define yourself?
 

What is it that makes you who you are?

I think who you are is not so much defined by specific traits, as it is by the whole complex of characteristics...

your actions define who you are. most people don't understand that, they overestimate their 'thoughts' and interior lives. Thoughts live inside your head, they are useless to the world unless you act on them.

wow, so far two very thoughtful responses.
I'm impressed... for real.

I agree 100%.
A bunch of little characteristics make up the whole.

They may be useless to the world, but they most certainly are not to yourself. Sometimes I sit and think for several days, for the outside world that would be useless, however, for me, it is not.
Your actions may determince who you are to the outside world, however, what you think and what you feel also play a large part in determining who you are from your own point of view.

I agree. But I was thinking more along the lines of, what are the basic/main characteristics that you use to define yourself?

I am laying in bed dreaming of day that I am Nina's future ex-husband

I wonder if you should look at characteristics or at potential characteristics. Right now, I have a bunch of characteristics specifically suited for what I am doing now, but if the situation were to change, my behaviour, thoughts and feelings would all change along.
The problem with that is that it is very possible that from each temporary state, a very specific outlook on oneself follows, which would make it nearly impossible to give an accurate, objective or even slightly stable description of what one considers to be the 'self'.

i agree that quiet time alone with our thoughts is good, my point is that too many people spend too much time doing it. You have to admit that it is a bit selfish, especially if you are with somebody or have a family.

I'm really bad with authors names but I often consider these two quotations.


A life unexamined is not worth living

and

The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation.

i'm prone to depression, i know the danger of thinking yourself to the point of 'paraylysis by analysis'.

Too much trying to count how many angels can dance on the end of a pin, too much time spent contemplating your belly button is not healthy.

But people who never think are also pretty shallow and simple.
I like people who are moody and thoughtful but it's a harder way to go through life.

Do you mean - What traits form your self image? i.e. "I am an athlete, wealthy, and wear expensive clothes".

wow, punkworld, that's a very clear way of saying it.
I am definitely impressed.

I don't.

In a way, I was thinking more along the idea of "I'm strong", "I'm weak", "I'm smart", "I'm funny"....

but I think punkworld is absolutely right... it all depends on the time in your life... as you go through it, your "defining characteristics" change.

we live in a capitalistic society, one that worships wealth and all that goes with it. I suspect most people define who they are by their jobs, income, looks, and things like that.

There are probably characteristics you possess that you parents could tell us about that you still possess fron childhood. Maybe intelligent, argumentative, introspective. If you meet a girl later today that tells you that you are the smartest person she has ever met, it would probably make you happy. In some way, there are characteristics you possess that are at least "slighty stable". I'm sure your parents could tell us a lot about you.

Well, this raises a very interesting problem: If your defining characteristics change, can you still speak about a 'real self'? Is there some essence somewhere of what you really are, or are you just a process without any defining aspects to it except for continuity?

I'm not saying those characteristics CAN'T change from childhood. I'm saying they didn't. Therefore they
are likely to form an integral part of your self image. The question could just simply be rephrased as "What is it that makes you who you are today?

I'm wicked and I'm lazy...
.
.
.
and I like ass.

Very good question. And one I don't think I can answer. There's something right about both... that gut feeling that you are a unique and special something... or the process that does continue on.

Good point. It indeed seems there is a slight form of stability.
However, I wonder if this stability isn't too vague to provide the idea of a 'real self'. It seems possible that such a vague notion of the self may well overlap with that of others at certain times, others may have the same characteristics at certain times. What I wonder about is if there is a truly distinguishing feature to be found, that sets one apart from others.

After you're done thinking about your good characteristics "I'm so hot", "I'm so clever", "I'm so wise", "I'm so brave" - think about your bad ones. Much more entertaining.

Punkworld,

I agree with what you're saying (this is our first time so mark down the date and time). I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a "real self" - whatever that means.

For example, the atoms that make up your body are constantly being exchanged for others. At some point, you have mostly different atoms than the ones you had earlier - however I still say "That is Punkworld. He's pugnacious" and everyone knows what and who I mean.

I'm not allowed to define myself. Steffie defines me.

if there is no "real self" then we can define ourselves however we want.

It could be that the only real reason is an instrumentalist one - it makes life a whole lot easier to do this, in fact, language would become void if you couldn't refer to objects as being stable, regardless of whether they really are stable or not.
One of the biggest mistakes people make is in my opinion that they try to derive objective truth from language, while language is in fact merely a crude tool for describing the world.
An example: actions are referred to as either 'good' or 'bad', however, people have derived from this that there must be an objective 'good', that is independant of both humans and language. I think the reasoning behind that is flawed.

We do. Don't we create ourselves as much as become ourselves? I often ask who the person I want to become is and then do. One of the most difficult parts for people is overcoming how other people already think of us.

Damn, Punkworld. I agree with you twice on one day. Here is the chart I am keeping.

Agree with Punkworld Disagree with Punkworld
--------------- ---------------
2 ------------- 387

Is this some sort of cruel joke?

Philosophical question? Are people, as Plato argued, made up of "essences" that are unchangeable and can be measured in terms of unchangeable eternal standards? or are people, as Aristotle implies in his teachings about teleology, necessarily defined in comparison to other people and that "perfection" is not defined in classic forms but in relative forms?

Or to take a Buddhist perspective, the "Self" is an illusion. We are nothing more than mere "heaps" of attachment?

I'm not so sure about that one. While our definition may not be objective or absolute, it could be a rough estimate, in which case one definition could be better than the other.
It's a bit like Popper's evolutionary theory of knowledge: we create a theory (or definition), see how well it works, if it proves not to be correct we change it, but all the while there is progress and we come closer to the truth with each new and improved theory (even though we will never know what the 'truth' is, or even if it exists or not).
Similarly, the definitions of oneself can not be compared to any 'real self', but they can be compared to eachother, and the one that works best and seems most accurate is accepted, until it is proven not to be correct or is replaced by an even more comprehensive definition.
Ofcourse, seeing how humans are dynamic, the definition also has to be a dynamic one, so it will have to include conditions and be able to develop itself.

Well, you once said that philosophically, you are a materialist, which lies pretty close to my own standing. So, in philosophical discussions we are bound to find some common ground.

Punkworld,

We left out that our characteristics change not just in time but also in circumstance. My parents think me to be one person, my future in-laws another, and you yet another.

In short, my parents think of me as a nice boy gone bad who is still basically good, my future in-laws think of me as a "nice young man", and you think of me as an asshole.

What are we to make of this?

What if the concept of "progress" itself [as exemplified by evolving from theory to theory] is an illusion?

http://www.antithesis.com/features/dignity_06.html

Well, I already posted before about our characteristics changing due to situations. That why I believe a viable definition would have to include conditions, as well as be able to develop.
Ofcourse, with adding the point of subjectivity to the discussion, yet another very interesting question is raised. A partial solution could be found in expanding the conditions to the realm of subjectivity, in other words, adding a 'from the point of view of X' condition. This does, however, make a clean and simple definition even more remote than before.

BTW, how did you the idea that I think you're an asshole? I think you're one of the most interesting people on GFY to debate with,

We define ourself by our actions and our habits.

Our natures are alike, it is our habits that set us apart.

Our life is the sum total of our thoughts.

Life is a giant movie screen for all our thoughts.

As Shakespeare said we will play many roles in a lifetime. It is that acting, the doing that defines who we are.

The purpose of knowledge is action, and once we have gained some knowledge we choose who we want to become or become so unconsciuosly by habit.

A thought held in mind without a hint of doubt will manifest itself into a physical reality.

"With our thoughts we make the world." - The Buddha

Is this how we define ourselves?

In that case, we would have to define progress as a subjective concept. However, many arguments can be given for the existence of progress, especially if you only use an instrumentalist definition of progress, and don't try to prove 'true' or 'objective' progress.

Agree with Punkworld Disagree with Punkworld
--------------- ---------------

3 ------------- 387

???

Record this. Post 548. Punkworld was confused.

Punkworld,

If you could watch a recording of my life, thoughts, and feelings - you would have a very good picture of who I am - what my personality is (you would also get to witness some pretty interesting crimes).

Since that would take a very long time, we take shortcuts. "Colin is argumentative, counts when he walks, and is somewhat obsessive-compulsive".

I think I could write a very good description of someone's personality IF I had enough paper and time but I prefer the short-cuts.

This is mine.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/...iles/entp.html

What's yours?
http://www.advisorteam.com/user/ktsintro1.asp

Your Temperament is: Rational (NT)
I don't plan on buying the complete thing though :)

PW - there might be a better version of the "Keirsey Personality sorter" test somewhere that gives the complete 4-dimensional ranking. I took it online in 1995 so not sure.

Found a free one, here's the outcome:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/...iles/intp.html

Here's the test:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp