This article delves into the philosophical debate surrounding the concept of identity. It challenges the traditional notion of a fixed and unchanging self, presenting arguments from various philosophical and cultural perspectives.
The article begins by highlighting the human struggle to define identity, a quest that has puzzled philosophers for centuries. It contrasts common adages that emphasize the static nature of personality with the reality of constant change. Examples from Aztec and Indian caste systems are used to illustrate how some cultures reinforce fixed identities through rigid social structures.
The article then introduces the counter-argument, primarily through the lens of David Hume's philosophy. Hume, a renowned empiricist, proposed that the self is not a permanent entity but rather a collection of ever-changing perceptions. This challenges the idea of an underlying, unchanging essence of self.
Further bolstering this perspective, the article brings in Eastern philosophies, particularly Buddhism. The concept of Anatta, or non-self, is presented, which posits that the idea of a permanent self is an illusion. Buddhism suggests that what we perceive as the "self" is merely a temporary configuration of constantly changing aggregates or skandhas.
The article concludes by prompting further reflection on the implications of these philosophical arguments in light of biological realities. It questions whether the continuous transformation of our physical and mental states, as understood through biology, supports the idea of a fluid identity or if there's an inherent element within us that provides a sense of continuity.
Vers une autre langue
à partir du contenu source
medium.com
Idées clés tirées de
by Emilio Bazan... à medium.com 10-28-2024
https://medium.com/philosophytoday/why-the-concept-of-identity-is-broken-84d18345474cQuestions plus approfondies