Who Am I?

[TheRapingDragon]

First: I started my philosophy course last week. Assignment for next week is simply to discuss who we are verbally. I decided to write a mini essay. I have no philosophical education or knowledge so this is merely an exercise in my own writing style / for fun.

Second: Anyone who knows me knows that I like to write and sometimes, when I get an urge to write, be it erotic random or whatever, I'll write, so ya.

Who Am I?

Asking “Who Am I?” can not be answered until you first look at the question, “What is I?”

I is a letter as the world sees it, set in a sequence from A to Z. It is a number to the Romans. Nonsense shout the scientists, I is a non-metallic element belonging to the halogens. I is everything and yet nothing; a sobriquet for illusions. It is a representation of an image, its precise definition dependent upon the particular mode of extension. Look at it:

(Here was an image of I's rotated in different angles looking cool. I don't have microsoft word or anything on my home computer [I'm lazy] so just imagine it or something)

Reach out and touch it. Try to grasp it in your hand, you can’t. Your hand merely grasps paper. The I is moulded on the paper yet it is not there, it is merely formed in your mind that what is seen is what is there. I exists in a realm within the paper.

The existence of the paper is another point entirely, but for this instance lets say the paper exists in a realm of physicality that can be explained . Does now the I exist as it has been theoretically “set in stone”? Can existence be circumvented through negation of probability, that is, if you stated “The I is on the paper, the paper is physical, I must therefore be physical,” then can you accept that there is no other probable answer?

Unfortunately that takes too much on belief, belief in knowing what the paper is, what the I could be, what is acceptable when the two join together. Belief can be shattered if I were to be printed on a concrete wall, a sheet of glass, where do you draw the line at what is physical and what I can be a part of?

You could draw I in your mind and the above statement would read “I is in my mind, my mind is physical, I must therefore be physical,” which could be argued as false as your mind has no known definitive physical shape, form, or mass.

Getting back to the question at hand, Who Am I?, well to you I may be a dreamer, a philanthropist of thoughts, perhaps a figment of your imagination (after all you cannot see me right now can you), I can be everything and nothing all the same even when not doing a thing. I am a representation of an image, dependent on the mode of extension, the thought of the particular person reading this.

I am the I and the world is my paper. Existence within an existence of a realm unknown. Created and cajoled by some visionary artist with a knack for the detail.

Who am I?
Well, that depends on who the writer is.

Was unsure to stick this in here or in critical thinking for discussion. Stick it wherever you feel best Mal / Dev.

[championanwar]

I seem to like this, I'm not one on philosophy, so I can't say too much. It makes sence and the purpose is sown throughout the text is shown. I also like the constant referral to "I", gives it more of a punch.

Nice one

[TheRapingDragon]

So this is the famous dead lit forum.

Or are the other 50+ of you who viewed too busy to reply or have a discussion.

[phe0nixblade]

Wow, that was amazing. I like it. I'm putting it on notepad so I can read it again some other time.

[All_That_Chaz]

Well you certainly had fun playing around with the terms, but I don't know if you've sufficiently answered the question. That is unless you're making the reading itself the real definition of who you are, which should get some fun looks from your classmates. It was entertaining, I'll give you that.

[igotrhythm]

Reminds me of the time I wrote a paper entitled "Three Pages of Nothing but Bull," which was exactly what the title implied.

Still, nice stuff. I bet Dev would get some kicks out of it (though he'd be loath to show it).

[TheRapingDragon]

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

Well you certainly had fun playing around with the terms, but I don't know if you've sufficiently answered the question.

Philosophy doesn't necessarily have to answer questions. It's the sort of exchange where you can get:

"This is a table"
"How do you know it's a table?"
"Well it's right there..."
"How do you know that?"
"I can see it"
"Define "see""
"Well...sight, a sense"
"How can you trust "senses" when you cannot "see" them?"

etc. Fun if you don't mind never-ending circles.

That is unless you're making the reading itself the real definition of who you are, which should get some fun looks from your classmates.

Technically, if I broke it down, I was saying that I don't know who I am, that depends on who created me ("the writer"). Everything else just built up to that.

I was told my essay was similar to deconstructionists such as Derrida and Foucault but to be honest I still don't have a huge grasp of it all (and probably won't even by the end) so this is still more for fun than anything else. At least it got positive responses.

Still, nice stuff. I bet Dev would get some kicks out of it (though he'd be loath to show it).

I'll need to get him to read this if he gets a chance.

[Adamaja456]

i thought you did a pretty good job on this paper. I enjoyed your writing style and the way you asked questions about what is i.

i would of like to see maybe another paragraph or two similar to your last one where you address that actual question. you dont have to answer it, but maybe just talk about it more to give the paper more of a balance. besides that, i liked reading it.

[TheRapingDragon]

Originally Posted by Adamaja456

i would of like to see maybe another paragraph or two similar to your last one where you address that actual question. you dont have to answer it, but maybe just talk about it more to give the paper more of a balance. besides that, i liked reading it.

I'd agree with this. I didn't spend long writing it so I know that I could have some more paragraphs in there. I definitely need a better transition from "what is I" to "what am I" rather than "getting back to the question".

[Tokzic]

Reaper, I love you and everything, but this bled pretentious to me. It'd make a cute introduction but you know damn well he's asking you to define yourself and you barely even touch on that.

[Svaz]

The title reminds me of this brilliant poem that was in my high school's art anthology thing, (I was toats on the panel for said anthology) ponder on THIS prose (copied verbatim):

Shadow Twin

What am I? A guy.
An average Kai.

I do homework

I have chores.
Hahahahahahaha.

I am like many a person.
However
I am easily angered.
If this were to happen...
Enter...

Shadow Twin

Rrreeaaaowwwwghh!

A force like no other. I am no longer human.
Nearly unstoppable with a rage like that
of 500 dragons.

Should a tiny ray of light get through...
Yes.

Shadow Twin

becomes dormant still inside me.

My personalities.

My being.

Shadow Twin is anger.

I am not.

[revolutionomega]

Interesting points. I'd like to see more on this, possibly more on the description to make it more real (such as you discussing the grasping of 'I' in reality) and what adam said.

[ieatyourlvllol]

Hiya Reap

As a fellow student of philosophy, I rather enjoyed this exposé. It appears you've taken the stance that a sensible existence is an abstraction of the human mind, but that existence within a physical realm does not necessarily imply genuine physicality. The statement that the mind "has no definitive shape, form, or mass" bears much semblance to John Locke's idea of primary qualities - those that are innate to an object and impartial to the grasp of human perception [as opposed to secondary qualities (visual, aural, tactile, gustatory, olfactory, etc.) that are ascribed by the mind rather than being conveyed to it]. According to your proposition, the mind is an impalpable entity from which we derive our conceptual existence, but the body exists on an entirely separate physical plane, and yet...it includes the brain to which our mind is inextricably linked. Here, we encounter the Cartesian dualism offered forth by Descartes, and a fascinating question inherently arises. If the two entities are as aforementioned, then how do they interact? For instance, your appendages obviously do not act of their own volition. What is the bridge, then, between your desire to move them and the fulfillment thereof?

I also like the idea of existence as an isolated extension ("a figment of your imagination..."). Carried to an extreme, the concept could be taken as solipsistic (that the individual reading this message is the only conscious mind present in the universe, and all others are just part of an elaborately constructed world). Your position is far from this end, though, since you added the concept of uncertainty (and the consequent degree of freedom it allows for).

Eh...I seem to be diverging a bit from your original premises. Regarding the essay as a whole, it has many interesting points, and you've clearly displayed your ability to intellectually contemplate and reason. Like Tokzic said, a classmate might find the effort pretentious, but it's mainly because unlike us, they aren't informed of your motivations for writing, so w/e.

Anyways...good stuff, Reap. I look forward to seeing your next posted work.

[TheRapingDragon]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

Reaper, I love you and everything, but this bled pretentious to me. It'd make a cute introduction but you know damn well he's asking you to define yourself and you barely even touch on that.

Have you any idea what philosophy can be like? Just because a question is put in front of you does not mean you have to give a specific answer. A question like that can be answered, in philosophy, in multiple ways:

I am a physical being in a mental world - Dualism
I am a physical being in a physical world - materialism
I am a mental being in a mental world, I don't exist physically - Idealism
I am an experience, a thought - Empiricism
I am because I am - Rationalism
What is I? - Deconstructionism.

etc.

You can say and do anything. I have heard stories of people answering questions with one or two words and still being given full marks as, in a philosophical stance, their argument is completely valid. I personally decided to take it my own way and write something in my own writing style with no previous knowledge of Philosophy. The professor explained that what I had done was deconstructionism, a completely valid take on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

Language is arbitrary; truth claims and intentions of a text are undermined by its own contradictions; meaning is finally indeterminate. The purpose of deconstruction is that it allows you to see through the alleged stability of textual meaning; textual meaning is not finite; close attention to the play of language yields pleasure

So ya, I really wasn't trying to be pretentious, merely write and see what happens.

[TheRapingDragon]

Also, ieat - You know a hell of a lot more than I do haha. I just do it as a small course and we've only really covered the basics. I know about Plato / Socrates / Heraclitus and we've touched on others like Archimedes, but thanks man, appreciate the response.