A while ago in class, we were discussing the past and its effects upon the future, and today we discussed whether a religion can maintain its identity as it undergoes numerous changes over time.
Well, what about us?
Do we maintain our identity as time passes? Is the "Eric" of a year ago, ten years ago, have the same identity as the "Eric" of today? I mean this intensionally, as extensionally, clearly my DNA hasn't shifted. But isn't there almost like three "Erics"? The "Eric" of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The three "Erics" could have completely different intensional maps, depending upon how much time has past, so does their "identity" truly remain constant?
If you've ever procrastinated, you've practiced this sort of thinking. After all, when the Eric of today procrastinates, isn't he merely pushing off his work to the Eric of tomorrow to do? Right now, the Eric of today almost views the Eric of tomorrow as a different person: Oh, he thinks, I'll just let him do it tomorrow, so that I don't have to do it today. (Of course, as the Eric of tomorrow becomes the Eric of today, he becomes very annoyed at the lazy Eric of yesterday that left him this work to do...)
In a sense, we have multiple selves, different versions. After all, the you of fifty years from now could seem like a completely different person than the you of today. That could be one reason why people have trouble saving for retirement: it's almost as if they're passing off their money to an older retiree years into the future, a retiree that is a different person from who they are today.
Thoughts?
(The Eric Wei at 7:53 PM Tuesday, who also apologizes for the constant use of the third person.)
6 comments:
Eric, your post reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes comic. I wish I could show the comic strip itself, but it's still pretty funny...
Calvin: “Ah, I got the letter I wrote to myself.”
Hobbes: “What did you write?”
Calvin: “Dear Calvin — Hi! I’m writing this on Monday. What day is it now? How are things going? Your pal. Calvin.”
Calvin: “My past self is corresponding with my future self.”
Hobbes: “Too bad you can’t write back.”
Calvin (next day): “I got a letter from my past self.”
Hobbes: “What’s it say?”
Calvin: “Dear Future Calvin — I wrote this several days before you will receive it. You’ve done things I haven’t done. You’ve seen things I haven’t seen. You know things I don’t know. You lucky dog. Your pal. Calvin.”
Calvin (sniffing): “I feel so sorry for myself two days ago.”
Hobbes: “Poor him. He wasn’t you.
Enjoy :)
Emily T.
Perhaps it is easier to define a fundamental identity for ourselves since we do, as you mentioned, have a physical and extensional basis for our identity. Most of our intensional changes are either influenced by or reflected in our extensional selves. Meanwhile, with religion, while religion as an institution might be able to maintain an identity, religion as a belief system would not be able to do so. There is no tangible basis on which to build; without a foundation, the structure may last but it will probably collapse within the near future.
Back to our own identities. This will probably sound really lame, but I suppose you could see it as analogous to Pokemon or calculus. We have different "evolutionary" stages which are all different but share a common basis in either origin or a single characteristic.
From a calculus point of view, our separate identities could be seen as derivatives of each other. Technically, you can have an infinite number of derivatives or "future selves" or any finite number you feel like having. Additionally, each derivative is relatable back to our "initial" identity, thus giving our multiple identities a common origin.
Grace Yuan
Going back to Hayakawa (yes, it seems like forever ago), it is stated that no word has the same meaning twice. I think that this also applies to identities and who we are. We are always changing, learning new things, developing new and different types of thinking. As I've often heard, "We learn something new everyday."
However, at the same time, we have characteristics that won't change for the rest of our lives (or at least for many years to come). For example, the Mary of this moment still has the same opinion of the Mary(or Meg for some of you) about reading long, complicated, boring passages. And I doubt that the Mary of tomorrow will have a very different opinion. There is probably an endless number of 'us' that exist throughout our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean that we can't all share certain similarities.
I loved the comic narration, Emily.
Eric: This reminds me of my trip with the family to Florida. I, myself, observe my own innate changes from day to day. Just imagine how different the Sam of a few months ago may have seemed to the members of my family.
If we remained static, we'd be worse off than the characters in Pirandello's "Six Characters in Search of an Author". Wouldn't we insist on fitting perfectly into the life that was written for us? (Or something along those lines, anyway..) Since we accept the expansion and evolution of our intensional maps, we accept differentiation in our identities. But still, aren't we, for the most part, creatures who detest change? Any clarification would be appreciated.
To answer your first question, Eric, I find it impossible to maintain an identity. Anything I do, whether it be typing this comment or walking to my room, adds experiences on my map, and I evolve with each passing second. I guess Grace's Pokemon analogy really does work here. :)
(Sam Maliha)
I agree with Grace's idea that we have "multiple identities" that share a common origin. Hence, I agree with Eric's speculation that in a certain sense we possess different versions of ourselves that develop as we proceed through life. However, I also agree with Mary's point that certain things about us may not change at all, even as our intensional maps change.
Eric asks if one's "identity" truly remains constant. How exactly do we define "identity"? (I feel as if I'm always the one who brings up definitions again.) The word is so seemingly abstract in itself that I have a difficult time answering questions related to it. Is "identity" limited to the commonalities amongst all of our different selves, or does it include all aspects of our "multiple selves"? If we consider it to be limited to the former, then it can indeed be stated that "one's identity remains constant." However, if we expand the definition to the latter, then it seems as if "identity" can never be constant (unless the individual is dead and no longer experiences new thoughts and actions).
I find this all so interesting, because prior to taking this class, I had always believed that one's "identity" defines who he/she is, and thus never changes. Now I am lead to consider different ideas.
(Janet Lee)
Identity is a very interesting topic. As many of you have mentioned, identity is constantly changing. On the other hand, it seems that "identity" implies something that remains unchanged regardless of the surrounding circumstances. According to Dictionary.com, one of the definitions of identity is "the sense of self, providing sameness and continuity in personality over time..."
These two ideas seem to contradict. Where do they meet? Is one definition more accurate than the other? I'm kind of at a loss... Any ideas?
Emily T.
Post a Comment