A question of honesty

Originally posted by FMF
No, I am defining identity as an internal thing comprising a unique knowledge and perception of an ongoing narrative detailing how one's individual personhood has interacted ~ and interacts ~ with external factors, events and other 'personhoods'.

How is that different from what I said? Your internal identity is the result of all those things, but those things didn't create you. Who were you before all of that happened? Were you male or female... human or beast... were you the king of Spain?

Are you really unable to zero in on this... the distinction between you and your identity as you have defined it?

Originally posted by lemon lime
How is that different from what I said? Your internal identity is the result of all those things, but those things didn't create you.

So you have been agreeing with me all along about personal identity?

Originally posted by lemon lime
How is that different from what I said? Your internal identity is the result of all those things...

FMF: Anguish. Joy. Love. Compassion. Relationships. Memories. And the narrative that joins all these and many other things together. These are the things that create a unique identity with humanity. Don't you agree?

Your answer was "no" a few pages ago.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Are you really unable to zero in on this... the distinction between you and your identity as you have defined it?

Why don't you make a new post with these words rather than add them after you've read how I replied to the words before it.

Originally posted by FMF
So you have been agreeing with me all along about personal identity?

I don't know... have you been agreeing with me all along about what it means to be you? Do you understand the distinction I've made between those two ideas?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I don't know... have you been agreeing with me all along about what it means to be you? Do you understand the distinction I've made between those two ideas?

I think I have been very clear about how I perceive identity and you appear to have been rejecting it and contradicting it for several pages.

Originally posted by FMF
Why don't you make a new post with these words rather than add them after you've read how I replied to the words before it.

What makes you think I added them after reading what you said? I saw what you said after editing, not before. Your presumptions are insulting, so go bother someone else... I'm done with you.

Originally posted by lemon lime
What makes you think I added them after reading what you said? I saw what you said after editing, not before. Your presumptions are insulting, so go bother someone else... I'm done with you.

You seem to be now claiming that you agreed with me all along ~ for dozens of pages? ~ but you have been making some sort of "distinction" - the word you added to your post above after I had replied. What is this "distinction" you have been making all though this thread whilst ostensibly agreeing with me?

-Removed-

I'm done with you too.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm done with you too.

Tell us about this ripcord word ~ "distinction" ~ that you added to your post after you realized that your suggestion that we have been in agreement all this time was not going to hold any water.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Well, I'm back already... darn it. I couldn't stop thinking about this, so the mentally relaxing vegetation mode will have to wait... darn it.

[b]I worry, though, about how much salvation/damnation can change us psychologically without our becoming essentially different people. There are really tough questions about personal identity lurking right und ...[text shortened]... OL ... And you'll know who you are in heaven... or that other place I don't like to think about.

Sorry for the delayed response, I appreciate your patience. Thanksgiving went off without a hitch, in-laws were happy, all is good. Hope your holiday was great!

First, I want to reiterate that questions of personal identity are some of the most challenging issues in philosophy, cutting across metaphysics, philosophy of mind and ethics. An account of personal identity needs to explain how it is that we as individuals persist through time despite also undergoing changes through time. To do this, it has to identify some characteristics or properties we have over time that form the basis of our identity. These characteristics or properties should be intuitive; they should be ones that we are inclined to find important and that appropriately connect to who we take ourselves essentially to be. These characteristics or properties should be stable enough over time to ground attributions of moral responsibility. These characteristics or properties should be unique enough that they individuate us from others.

The most plausible accounts of personal identity out there highlight the importance of our deep psychological characteristics; things like character traits, value systems, personal relationships and memories. These are the sorts of things we pick out as making us who we are. If, in a person, these things are radically changed, it makes sense to say that person is no longer who he/she was before.

But, of course, although these psychological properties are typically relatively stable over time, they also gradually change. So, the most plausible accounts of personal identity out there do not say that we have to remain psychologically identical through time. Rather, they claim that we have to be robustly psychologically connected through time. In other words, I am the same person I was a year ago because I am very, very psychologically similar to the person I was a year ago. If, in a year from now, I am the same person I am today, it will be because I have retained the vast majority of these psychological characteristics. I know this is kind of vague and hand-wavy, but hope it makes sense. We can dive into the arguments for and against view of this sort if you’re interested; it’s pretty fascinating stuff.

Anyway, something like this account has been in the background, informing the questions I’ve been asking you. My worry has been that the psychological changes we’ll undergo upon our Salvation/Damnation will be so abrupt and significant that they might constitute a break in the chain of our psychological connectedness. But, if so, then personal identity won’t be retained in the afterlife. And if that’s the case, then the afterlife wouldn’t be an afterlife at all, but a new life for a new person. And if that’s the case, then there’s no reason we should care about the afterlife. Further, in the afterlife, this new person will be being rewarded or punished for the actions of some other, previous person. Because that would be unjust, it would constitute a counter-example to God’s supposed moral perfection. But because (I’m assuming, correct me if I’m wrong) you take God to be morally perfect by definition, this counter-example would actually show God doesn’t exist.

Does this line of argument make sense?

Originally posted by bbarr
Sorry for the delayed response, I appreciate your patience. Thanksgiving went off without a hitch, in-laws were happy, all is good. Hope your holiday was great!

First, I want to reiterate that questions of personal identity are some of the most challenging issues in philosophy, cutting across metaphysics, philosophy of mind and ethics. An account of perso ...[text shortened]... unter-example would actually show God doesn’t exist.

Does this line of argument make sense?

Very interesting post. I wonder if loss of self is automatically a bad thing though. In Buddhism they talk about getting off the wheel of life and avoiding reincarnation with the goal of Nirvana and complete loss of identity.