Is [Human] Identity Arbitrary?
I have been in a debate regarding identity, and I've come to a couple conclusions. First, identity is not arbitrary, it does not shift like a house built on sand. Granted personalities do change in regards to tertiary values, perhaps one doesn't like playing with pokemon cards anymore and the like, but the core values of curiosity and imaginative thinking still remain which drove a person to like such things earlier in life that it too drives the person to like similar things later in life. This means, whatever values a person takes on, their behavior from time to time may shift, but their identity never will. Does a person cease being a person of s/he/ze does not drive a car, but instead rides a bicycle, to work? Clearly not, so again, behavior does not change the person or that person's identity. Second, identity is not based in plurality of selves, it is onle absolutely singular self. No matter what the psycho-analytics will say or attempt to hat trick into the scientific community (which they often do and are promptly refuted by scientific skepticism...), their claim that identity is based on a plurality of selves or personalities, or 'families', will never replace the currently known reality that when a person speaks 'I' they are literally meaning self as singular and integrated. Not even D.I.D. can prove the existence of pluralization of identity, considering it's been under sharp criticism for decades. To suggest a pluralism of identity is to suggest homunculus argument, which is often met with problems such as where did the homonculus come from, how did the homonculus form, and/or what are the physical constants for a homonculus. In this case, it's homonculus times nth number of arbitrary divisions of self.All in all, I liked the debate so far, but I believe the person in question has put me on ignore on the forum, therefore it's ended by my opponent's wish and not mine. I do not know if this proves my point in this regard, that personalities are singular and non-arbitrary, but it does prove when you pull out the facts and show contradiction to the claims given, an opponent's resolve to debate one will dissolve fast. Especially, if their claims rest on narrative and not normative explanations.
-- Brede
For as long as I can remember, I never felt like I was a man or a boy. When I was little I use to tell my mom I was a Ryan, not a boy, of course Ryan is my legal name, but wasn't the point to call myself by my name as my identification rather it was because the idea of being a boy made me sick to my stomach then. I did not fully understand as to why I felt that way then, but I do know now. It was because for all the attempts at trying to be a boy, to be a man, to be masculine, it never ever worked out. No matter how much I tried to cuss like the other boys, or tried to be rough at play like the other boys, it just did not come to anything enjoyable. Now I wasn't "a little sissy" as the old saying would go, but I was different. I loved reading books, drawing, and day dreaming. I loved science as well, the power to understand things that seemingly were impossible to know was something I wanted to do. And above all, I never wanted to be handsome, I wanted to be pretty. I wanted to look refined, graceful, and beautiful. To me that was what I was, not bulky, tough, and handsome. This made me an outcast to many, even to teachers and other adults. I was told that what I valued made my life a mistake. And I was taught this with threats of force if I did not feel guilt or repentant for my values. It worked, I hated myself, my reflection, and even my life. This made me a hard person to deal with through most of my life. I was not open to conversation, or friendships. I just hid behind books and food, getting smarter and cooler to human contact. I even hated my family for it, as if was there fault, even though they had no part in it.
Why bother? Why even try to live? It's the seminal question that everyone most pose in their lives as they see suffering or are a victim of suffering. It's the kind of question one does not ask lightly in light or darkness. One asks this question when one feels one's life is at an end, or at a point where it cannot get better. My answer to the question is fairly simple at its face, but underneath there's something complex: because there's something more. What do I mean by "because there's something more?" I mean that in the whole of the universe/multiverse is there always more. Not because it's endless, but because we are endless. How can I assume any person that is clearly finite in aptitude, in capacity, and in time is endless? That conclusion is marked by a simple fact that if a person is left alone, they tend toward doing more than what others would expect them to do. In some small measure, the human animal, the rational being, has no end since there is no way to gauge the ultimate state of such a being. Thus, a rational being, a human, is indeed truly endless, not statically so, but dynamically so. That even in the darkest of times, a human can find a way out. A means to success. A means to something more.
And yet I am left with no other choice, but to examine them. As of late, I have considered some strange ideas, many of which are considered impossible by most. One such example would be the utilization of the electrostatic properties of water as to shape it into rigid bodies. In some cases, this would seem impossible, but the more I dug into the physical properties of water, this is indeed possible. What the problem comes into for this idea is power. Not even the most well built nuclear power plants today could yield the instant burst of power to ionize a volume of water sufficiently to make it into a rigid body even for a few seconds. This is the only hurdle to its use. If it were possible to make the power needed, and the mechanism to distribute it along the whole of a volume of water, the uses would be limitless. Buildings made of a simple molecule like water. Or water stored as itself with no external containers around it. Or using water inside of materials to reshape them like concrete. Or even control the over flow of water in a human body to keep it from damaging vital organs.
I think it's interesting how many people at my age, 26, are either in a serious relationship or finally married. Often, I find myself wondering if I am doing something wrong since I cannot find anyone as if I'm not the kind of person that is approachable. Granted, I think my own soul searching over my early adulthood has left me either too scared to approach people or too unwilling to bother, but when I do try to reach out, even for friendship, I find the social ties others are able to maintain more easily than me next to impossible for me to achieve. There are things I do keep secret or unexplained, but only because I prefer to find out about the person I wish to befriend before I attempt to tell more about me than necessary at that time. Perhaps, I am merely trying to mask a deeper issue. Yet, I find this too not completely true. I do love my solitude to a degree, it's fun to be able to read without interruption or to do my programming projects without someone asking too many questions about it. 


