There is no Real You.
There is no Real you because your personality is simply a compilation of your tastes with your experiences and both of those things are beyond any type of reasonable control.
Your being is simply an expression of the universe happening and even when you think about things that are "bigger" than you, like love, hope, hate and etc. Those are still a direct result of actions and happenings that are beyond you and the people that caused them are also acting on their best of worst choices that are the result of memories and tastes that they also cannot control.
So in the end when you boil down that person that you are to its bare minimum you realize that you are a combination of your parents, your experiences and your tastes that may also rely on your experiences....
Your being is simply an expression of the universe happening and even when you think about things that are "bigger" than you, like love, hope, hate and etc. Those are still a direct result of actions and happenings that are beyond you and the people that caused them are also acting on their best of worst choices that are the result of memories and tastes that they also cannot control.
So in the end when you boil down that person that you are to its bare minimum you realize that you are a combination of your parents, your experiences and your tastes that may also rely on your experiences....
Comments (63)
In my books that's good enough to define the real me.
What, in your view, would constitute a real person? What you wrote is what comprises a real person to me.
Quoting Filipe
...to our earlier discussion.
I learned this when my children were born. I've talked about it with other parents too, and most of them agree. Babies being born are all there. They are the people they will be from the first second. It doesn't matter why they are that way - genetics, chance, in utero experience. They are real people and they will continue to develop as they grow. They are not empty sacks to be filled with experience.
To paraphrase Richard Feynman, the now deceased bongo-playing nuclear physicist (1945), "Nothing is simply". (He said "nothing is 'mere'".)
Another thing he said was that "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool." An earthier form of this is "Don't believe your own bullshit." Big mistake!
Quoting Filipe
So, how did these other people get executive agency (which requires a 'real you') so they could cause stuff?
Quoting Filipe
I am willing to boil you down. When would you like to step into my vat of boiling water? I predict the real you will appear in the form of screams before your foot is submerged, never mind the rest of you.
Yes; but, don't memories serve as some sort of proof that we actually have something that constitutes an identity?
"The child is father to the man." I think William Shakespeare.
This is true. The universe happens, we exist. And we are real. The universe is real, right? Things that happen in the universe are real, right? One of the infinity of things that happen in the real universe is our existence as unique real beings.
Thank god I majored in English! No, it was William Wordsworth (1770 - 1850).
My heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began;
So is it now I am a man;
So be it when I shall grow old,
Or let me die!
The Child is father of the Man;
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.
He probably thinks there are no real fish, as well. It's like all the "How do I know I am not a brain in a vat... I am not in the Matrix... I am the only person that exists... other people are not real... nothing is real... the universe isn't real... get real... etc.
Another poet:
"I was so much older then... I'm younger than that now."
Here's the real deal:
My Back, Pages!
Bob Dylan
Crimson flames tied through my ears, rollin' high and mighty traps
Pounced with fire on flaming roads using ideas as my maps
"We'll meet on edges, soon, " said I, proud 'neath heated brow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now
Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth, "rip down all hate, " I screamed
Lies that life is black and white spoke from my skull, I dreamed
Romantic facts of musketeers foundationed deep, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now
Girls' faces formed the forward path from phony jealousy
To memorizing politics of ancient history
Flung down by corpse evangelists, unthought of, though somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now
A self-ordained professor's tongue too serious to fool
Spouted out that liberty is just equality in school
"Equality, " I spoke the word as if a wedding vow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now
In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach
My existence led by confusion boats, mutiny from stern to bow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now
Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms quite clear, no doubt, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then I'm younger than that now
I concur. Is reality wrong?
Maybe people don't like it (reality) being right all the time?
Well, I hope to hell there are no real fish in my water form the well.
Yeah... reality... fucking know-it-all.
Both songs have a better verson than by Dylan. MQ by Manfred Mann, W by Jimi.
And then there is "Tangled Up In Blue"... it is a masterpiece. Both music and lyrics.
I was extremely happy when the news came out he got it. I never felt more healthy pride... I felt that finally one of "us" got the award of distinction. By "us" I meant the flower children and everyone else who came after. "I hope that I die before I get old" sort of people. (ironically, we all got old...reality. Again! What a gyp.)
Growing old is a very good thing, because otherwise one is dead.
The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? None else but death.
What a bunch of bullshit. He's a songwriter, not a poet. I like some of his stuff, but people worship him. And yes, his voice is crap.
On the other hand, "I'm not saying you treated me unkind. You could have done better, but I don't mind. You just sort of wasted my precious time. Don't think twice, it's alright." Greatest breakup song ever. Always makes me wish I had someone to break up with.
Although I am against women singing Don't Think Twice - they generally don't get enough bitterness in it - this is my favorite version, more for the violin solo than the singing. It gets the bitterness just right.
Pronouncing Dylan Nobel worthy was, as you said, a bunch of bullshit, but in that case I don't really believe my own bullshit. I have no desire to listen to anything beyond his early work. If all his later works were to burn up in a music warehouse fire (shit happens) I'd not weep.
Songwriter vs. poet... I quarrel with this, because a lot of song lyrics read just exactly like poetry. It's amazing. Whether a great hymn lyric, broadway musical lyric, or protest song lyric, great lyrics read like great poetry, and I'm fine with that.
Let's make a deal: I'll now say that the Nobel Committee was full of Swedish shit (in awarding the prize to Dylan) and you can now start calling Bob's lyrics poetry.
Let's go further and admit that the Nobel prize is bullshit, coming in a close second only to the Hanover Award. For someone to think it matters that Dylan got the prize means they must think the prize matters.
The way the Hanover award is awarded is I carefully review the prospect's body of work, pretending to critically evaluate it, and then I give it to the guy who is most politically aligned with my views. I won it again this year. In your face @Baden. Maybe next year.
My "real me" isn't something that I believe is ultimately under my control, and it's not something that I take to be simply a compilation of my tastes and experiences.
So if you want to argue that there is no "real me," you're going to need something better than that.
I object :down: Most strongly :naughty:
This should be open to a public vote. From a list of 5, compiled by the contributors and readers of this thread. Who can best answer the question 'Who Am I ?' :chin:
Not me. You. Who are you ?
Who Are We ?
Tom Clark, editor of Prospect magazine, reveals:
Quoting Tom Clark
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/17/three-word-question-world-biggest-brains-survey-intellectuals
So, who are you ? Real or otherwise ?
I guess it's what some philosophical types are interested in. What is it that seems 'very fishy' ?
The underlying issue is about identity. Reasons are given for the claim. An argument is offered.
A fairly typical hook, I would say.
Quoting Filipe
So, if I bite, I might first ask what do you mean by 'Real' ? As opposed to what ? Imaginary ?
A complex of different dynamic bodily parts and functions, where for "personal identity," the focus is on a complex of different dynamic brain functions that amount to mentality--thoughts/ideas, desires, concepts, memories, senses of self, etc.
So, a pretty pared back bundle of mentality, then ?
Is that what you would write about 'You' in your autobiography ?
Says who ?
I looked it up - skitsnack. I don't have any real objection to giving Dylan high accolades, even the Nobel Prize in songwriting. But it's not lichchurchur. I can't believe there's not some great Malawian poet or Thai novelist who deserves the recognition before the committee stretches the definition to allow entry to an American celebrity.
Hey, wait a minute - I just remembered - Dylan is from Minneapolis, isn't he! Always rooting for the hometown boy.
Nonsense.
I don't know what that phrase amounts to, but all the stuff I said in my reply, not just part of it paraphrased.
In an autobiography, obviously I'm going to focus on actions, events, experiences, etc. It wouldn't be a philosophy text about personal identity.
Not all philosophical texts about identity are so reductionist, are they ? You boiled it down to brain function. Is there not something more interesting and expansive - like what is it like to be you ?
What does it mean to be you ? The different senses of you...
Quoting Terrapin Station
Well if the 'real you' is about dynamic brain function, then why would it not be under your control?
Body, actually, of which brain is a very prominent part, since that's the part where mentality obtains, and people usually focus on mental aspects when it comes to personal identity.
How would what it's like to be me/what it "means" to be me (whatever loose sense of "meaning" you're using there) not amount to my dynamic body?
Quoting Amity
For example, I didn't exist prior to the development of my body to make my body the way it is, did I?
Quoting StreetlightX
Like :up:
So, who is T Clark? Let's see:
There's no trick to this. There's no big mystery. That's what philosophy is all about - making the simplest things in the world complicated and mysterious.
This doesn't make any sense to me.
Your dynamic body is not the whole of your identity. Your body and mind help make up the personal identity which is one aspect of you within your socio-cultural sphere, online and beyond.
Your dynamic body is under your control, unless something dramatic happens to you.
And then it might become another 'you'. With a different personality, exhibiting different behaviour.
The question of 'Who is the real you ?' becomes of practical and emotional relevance to you and family who will exclaim 'But that's not Terrapin Station !' or whatever your real name is.
Why did you choose the highly individual name: Terrapin Station ? What does it mean to you ?
This is nothing new. This issue was fully addressed by that great American philosopher P.T.S. Mann in the 1930s.
And what does that mean ? How does that answer the question of who we are ?
Is it about working out who the 'Real' you is, or might be - and then some kind of self-realisation or actualization?
I was waiting for that. You didn't disappoint.
But who was Popeye, really ?
I find this research intriguing and perhaps worthy of the Hanover award, not primarily because it references female bisexuality, but only because of that. Quoting Amity
This decision is too important to submit to democratic decision. The gods must decide. We shall submit this to lots, the drawing of a straw, rocks paper scissors, or perhaps we shall see if a designated witch drowns or survives.
I Will Survive :starstruck:
Of course I was joking, but not completely. First - Popeye's explanation is as good as any of the others presented here. Second - It underscores how philosophy obscures things that are right out in the open. And third - I like to remind everyone how cute and funny I am.
:smile:
You do like your bullet points, doncha?
Almost :100: for cuteness and humour.
The open sea can get quite rocky :vomit:
Somewhere Nietzsche uses the analogy of the art of the sculpturer who unlike the painter who adds to a blank canvas, removes all that is extraneous, superfluous, and false.
At each step of becoming who you are it is you who is making that determination. The more skilled the sculpturer the less likely he is to remove what is integral to the work. But perhaps unlike the sculpturer working in marble who cannot replace what has already been removed, we are of a more forgiving material. Or perhaps once something has been removed we must work with what remains.
I would say that the short answer is peace.
Because once that you truly understand that the "real you" is an actor that simply act the universe and there is no true difference between you and everything.
You are always part of something, not just anything but all that there is and that personally gives me some peace.
Not initially, if you are the person being sculpted or moulded by someone else.
Sculpture can involve: carving, modelling, casting, constructing.
Usually, there is a form in mind. We don't always have that. Sometimes, development is more organic. That might be less deterministic and more like free jazz. But yes, you still need to have the basic, core materials. Soft like wax, or hard like marble. Even the latter can portray a softness. The KISS by Rodin.
In 'Becoming', Michelle Obama reflects on the experiences that shaped her. And yes, it is still a process where there are moments of vital decision-making. Choices only we can make, for better or worse. And then there is this...
Quoting Fooloso4
Perhaps particularly pertinent to ageing bodies with 'Bits-Falling-Off Syndrome'.
It's a Grateful Dead song/album. Here's the title track:
The Dead are one of my favorite musical artists. My avatar is also from Grateful Dead album artwork. It's from the Europe 72 box set.
Quoting Amity
Dynamic means that it's changing/it doesn't stay the same. You're constantly changing, your personality is always in process of changing a bit, etc.
Quoting Amity
That's about other persons' concepts, and specifically, it's about what they'd consider the "essential" features for them to christen something by a particular name.
But the extent to which you allow this to happen is determined by you.
Quoting Amity
Right, some form or shape or of yourself as you are and as are are to be. But of course this may take shape or change over time.
Quoting Amity
Right, it is not deterministic but free jazz, despite what it may sound like, requires disciplined practice and the ability to hear and respond. One does not begin with the ability to play freely. So too, one does not begin with the ability to live freely.
Quoting Amity
Or are not where they used to be.
You are just begging the question. If I define the real me as "a compilation of my tastes and experiences", then according to you there is a real me/there is no real me.
I don't know about that. I think a toaster can make toast much better than I can, but the toaster didn't do a very good job when I asked it to write this post for me. I had to do it.
Everything changes to some extent. Action > Reaction.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I meant also to include the reaction of ' That's not me. That's not who I am '
This defensive exclamation can apply when someone tells it like it is. 'You're a racist'.
Sometimes we really don't know who we are. Or don't want to accept it.
Of course, some do. 'I'm a racist. So what ?'
Interesting thought about your given name and surname. Does it affect who we become. And does changing it mean that we aren't comfortable in that skin. Why do people stick with their forum name and others change. Stability, continuing reputation v Flexibility, renewal.
The Grateful Dead - quite the favourite with certain members. Our music, art, book collection reflects part of who we are at any given time. Some are core.
Thanks for sharing part of who you are.
Not always possible. Think circumcision.
Quoting Fooloso4
For sure, we start off with little.
As we grow, a few might still not have the ability or capacity to play music or live freely.
Depending on many factors- physical, geographical, political circumstances.
However, a child or someone with limited abilities, knowledge or talent can still sing, dance and jam without constraints of rule following. They are being themselves.
As you said, we work with what we got.
Point, or should I say tip, taken. But as the sculpturer of yourself you begin with the material you have to work with.
Quoting Amity
While I agree that these things play a role, if two people start off more or less the same, with similar ability or capacity, and have similar physical, geographical, political circumstances they may not both be able to play or live freely. It has to do with what one does with what she is given.
Quoting Amity
From the article "What is Free Jazz" from Masterclass https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-free-jazz#what-is-free-jazz
I might add, learn your instrument and don't break it.
So too with life. To live free one must first learn the rules. In neither case is it simply a matter of doing whatever you want whenever you want.
But, but... that is part of being who you are, self-expression.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_destruction
Think Pete Townshend of the Who.
Who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
(Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
I said (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
I did not think of the intentional breaking of instruments as a "form of expression". But if it is your only instrument then unless or until you get another you can't play. Even if you are playing free jazz you are not free of your instrument.