I would like to take a moment to discuss the topic of individuality and personal identity. It is my perception that as a person develops cognitive abilities, they are molded by aspects of their life and environment. Some of the contributing factors include society, experience, family, and genetics. It would be useful to understand what character is and also what it means to be an individual. As I think about the definition of individuality it becomes harder to accept that any one person can actually stake this claim with any merit. It is my perception that to be a true individual would actually make you a social deviant on a scale that I dont think most people understand. To be a true individual would make you completely insane and out of touch with the commonly accepted version of reality.
The first thing I would like to address is the definition of individuality. I would like to say that individuality is a combination of qualities that encompasses who you are. Some of the elements of individuality would be the following: tastes, morality, manner, physical appearance, activity, world view, concept of reality, mental dexterity, compassion etc I dont think I could ever really encapsulate the concept of individuality with just a few words but this is how I understand it in a nut shell.
As I look at the things I just listed it appears to be a pretty fair balance between things that you can and can not control. The thing is that most people judge them selves based upon what others think of them. It is not quite that simple though, people dont always care about what just anyone thinks or says about how they act, feel, and think. When a person feels that they are understood by someone they will assign merit to their evaluations of their actions.
I am not trying to say that everyone is judgmental and or should be for that matter. There are many occasions where a person would either want another perspective and or would have another perspective introduced to them. A person in a moment of introspection might want to ask another for their perspective on a view they hold. The fact that a person calls into question their reasoning is healthy and keeps one honest and open minded. It is mentally taxing to try and be this way all the time so I am not trying to say that I feel everyone should be up for this sort of interaction at all times. A change in ones view or moral structure is a pretty substantial blow to the equilibrium one has established through their view of reality. It is a slow and gradual process but I think it is a healthy one. When people introduce their perspective to someone, it is usually prompted by the person in question doing something hurtful to them selves or others. I wont deny the fact that some people do this purely out of malice or otherwise. There are those who could care less about helping others and their only focus is to bring others down to make them feel better about themselves but that is not what I am talking about here. What I am talking about are those people who will tell their friends the truth when others might just tell their friends what they think they want to hear. The fact is those that might say something that could possibly put off their friend but they might consider helpful are the ones who are being truly altruistic. When a person says things like this to their friends they know it will elicit an emotional response in some cases that will be uncomfortable but it is usually a means to a better end. A person could possibly stop engaging activities that hurt themselves or others in which would contribute to the overall greater good.
Society contributes to developing our social norms. The general etiquette involved in conversing with others of certain status or gender is one of the first things we learn as a child. The fact that one should say thank you when someone does something nice for them or to address their elders with respect by using the prefix Ms. or Sr. is an indication that our society trains social norms. The time of day one should be asleep or awake, the laws one should obey, the fact that one should wear clothing, these are all things that are impressed upon us by society. The wearing of clothing does serve a protective utility but if not wearing clothes can only put you in physical harms way others shouldnt care. The thing is in this society of course we would care if people were walking around naked, we would be shocked and appalled. As I think about it though, I dont understand why our most natural form is considered offensive. I will admit that my first reaction would be much the same but that is because I have been conditioned to feel that way by society. From an objective stand point though there is no reason the human form should be considered dirty or offensive in any circumstance. I am just using this as an example though; I dont advocate this sort of activity because I think it would weird me out. I am just trying to say that if we start to try and think outside of what we have been trained to think and the reasoning behind it you begin to see things dont really seem to be founded on anything substantial. We take on these views and we make them part of ourselves much the same way a computer can have an application installed on it and perform its functions. The main point is this, we dont make up our own minds about these things we are trained to feel this way. People will take things to and extreme and wear different clothing and live different lifestyles such as Goths or people who are into body modification but I would be hard pressed to call them individuals. They are not expressing themselves any different than anyone else does in that subculture.
Experience is what makes us form our view of the world. The fact that we experience one thing and end up with the same results within a certain margin of probability over and over is what makes us believe that we know something for certain. If one understands the finer points of quantum mechanics this reasoning would not be sound. Since with live in the macroscopic world though I dont think we really have to worry about that. If a person grows up in a racist community and only knows oppression and prejudice then that person would feel that is how things are regardless if in other places things are not like that. Its much like the whole concept explained in Platos republic and the allegory of the cave. All the people see are shadows dancing on a wall while shackled in a cold dark cave. The scope of all their understanding of the world is defined by this 2 dimensional vision of reality. The ability to break the chains and go to the surface would yield a world unknown to any of these individuals. A person coming back from this experience would try and explain this world to the others but would be hard pressed to convey the wonder with what little they have learned from shadows. How do you explain depth and color to a person who only knows black and white and 2 dimensional objects? The person would be dismissed as a lunatic and the people would go on with their lives. The idea here is we are only individuals within the bounds of the shackles that experience and society has placed on us.
Family is like the tool of society to implement the social standards. The family is what trains you on the etiquette and what is right and wrong. The way to run your life and how to pursue happiness are all things we learn from our parents. I would have to say the family serves much the same function as society does and the results are invariably different. I by no means am trying to say the world is like a cookie cutter that creates drones. But you can walk up to a person and basically know what to expect by way of our training on how to interact with other people. We do make choices as to what we want to accept and believe and that is what I think most people will like to hang their hat on. I read a book once that basically broke down the meaning of life to two words, they are as follows: Choose again. The idea there I think is the fact that we have free will is what makes us different. The problem is our choice is shaped by our training and experience. It is hard to say that the choice is yours alone.
Genetics is the only real true individuality that we have. The person we are biologically can not be replicated. The dna can be cloned and such but the problem is a person can not be in the same place at the same time at all times therefore the system of one being is always going to be different than the other on some subtle level. The fact that you can end up bumping into something or catch some debilitating disease is what would start to make ones body different than its clone. Some of the aspects that are part of our genetic individuality are as follows: appearance, health, intelligence, dexterity. The thing is all of these things will effect how people perceive us and the results of our experiences. Some examples of a persons genetics yielding different results would be found in things requiring great strength and things requiring a symmetrical visage. These people are all being born into the same reality but very different are the aspects for which it yields to them. The only chink in the armor of my thoughts on this matter is contained within this paragraph. Your genetics does play a role in all of these things but what I do want to point out is environment is also key. People who grow up around negativity tend to be negative. This example can be extended into just about any aspect of an environment and will shape a persons character.
As humans we have certain natural instincts to survive. It is a necessary condition for survival that the needs for the following are satisfied: food, water, air, sleep, security. The first known bi pedal hominids which I believe were called the Australopithecus afarensis had basic needs and desires which all pretty much stemmed from the aforementioned core requirements. The progressive cognitive ability of these creatures is what started to create persona which defined their individuality. The ego of these creatures was crudely defined by ones physical prowess and also ability to serve its function in the localized community. Males would compete for mates and the role of the alpha. This struggle for mates would settle and would create social strata that would establish the distinction between others. Not to leave out the females but for the sake of brevity I must. Basically the point I am trying to make here is even in our most primitive form we had a sense of identity and a desire to be better. In this arena it seems that the dominant characteristic was genetics in establishing identity. Im not speaking on any first hand knowledge here because my time machine isnt working properly; the damn flux capacitor is on back order so I will have to leave this as an assumption. I dont think there was a lot of personality in these creatures it was more of a continuous battle for dominance and mates. Another factor was how many offspring one could bring into the world, the more offspring the more "fit" the animal would be considered from a Darwinist perspective. Infanticide was common in these groups due to the fact that the females would have many partners and if a male was under the impression that the offspring of his mate was not his own he would kill it. This was another indicator of the male ego and its frailty.
The whole idea behind everything I just bored the shit out of you with is this; the basis for individuality was pretty tenuous. The other aspects of their day to day lives were either by instinct or learned by the community with which these creatures thrived. The major advantage any being would have over another would simply be the genetics that gave them the physical advantage.
The current conventional wisdom, as I perceive it, as to what makes a person an individual is the mind and not so much the body. The in tangible entity that philosophers have tangled with for ages is what is currently understood to be the key factor in individuality. It seems that our egotistical view of being part of something greater or our need and desire to have some purpose is what makes the mind such a mystifying topic to most. To some it takes on an almost astral quality which transcends space and time. I am not sure how I feel about all of that but I do agree that our mind is what defines us in the current state of affairs. It was the development of culture that created this change in archetype. The advent of stone tools and fire is what introduced the level of complexity which enabled the mind to start to flourish.
I am slowly but surely getting to the main point but I am not quite there yet. I am trying to show a natural progression, a flux if you will, that contains the concept of individuality. The advent of technology made things more efficient and allowed for more exploration and utilization of the land that wasnt before possible. These changes in the quality of life allowed for people to explore the vast sea of knowledge and opportunity that started to unfold. It would be a persons natural affinity towards any one specific trade or action that would cause them to become encompassed with learning more about it and developing the craft. Everything at this point was in its infancy including culture. Creatures started to take on a whole new dimension because the number of things one can be interested in grew by many orders of magnitude. The development of languages and dialects also provided for a faster and more refined means of communication. These aspects all began to diverge into a mass explosion of individuality. The point I am trying to make here is this, individuality is sparked by differences in pursuit and not because of ones nature. It is not something you are born with but rather it is something that is developed over time. Our character is a product of our environment, of our experience and yes of our nature as well but I will have to say the dominant factors are those for which we have no control over. The thing is we dont have this omnipotent view of the universe and reality. With a lack of an absolute understanding we must occasionally reflect on our views and opinions and morality. We gain perspective as we grow up and some things we considered concrete elements of our character as teenagers end up turning into painful lessons and perspective shifts as we become adults.
The whole point I am trying to bring across is this, I think a person should be open about who they are and the way they see things. A person should be willing to put their reason to the test and if it fails the person should be willing to adjust and not consider it an effrontery to who they are. I have personally had people tell me that they are liars or cheaters by nature and I should take it or leave it and if I didnt then I didnt accept the person they were. Personally the way I see that is just being arrogant, stubborn, obstinate, and closed minded. It is abundantly obvious that in the case that I just presented that the person should adjust their ways because by virtue of the golden rule of, do unto others as you would want done unto yourself, they are facing a double standard. It is this elitist attitude that I think bothers me the most. But the example I am giving is a pretty extreme case. This whole discussion here I guess is based on the concept of helping people see things from a different light because what they are doing might be hurting you or others. I often find that no matter how carefully I try and approach these situations these people become highly defensive and say that I wont accept the person they are. The real problem is they wont engage in a constructive discussion about the matter. I dont claim to be any authority on this matter but I am open to discussion. I am more than happy to be wrong, I actually like to be wrong because I learn something new. I dont hold pride in my opinion and I dont think others should either. It is pride that is the central problem when it comes to people opening up to alternate ways of seeing and interacting with things.
