who are you?

so, Who are you?

Well, my name is Kropotkin…

That is a name someone else gave you, who are you?

Well, I am a clerk in a grocery store…

that is an job, something you do for a living, it isn’t who you are.
so, who are you?

Well, I am a democrat, a liberal…

that is a label, some ism that exists outside of you…
it is like self identifying as a catholic or a republican or
a American… those are labels outside of you… those things
exist outside of who you are… those don’t tell me who you are?
so who are you?

Well, I am human…

that tells me what species you are but it doesn’t tell me who you are?

Well, what do you mean by, who are you? tell me specifically what you mean?

who are you is a very specific request… you are telling me you don’t know who you
are?

Well, I know who I am, I am just looking for some guidance on the question…

If you knew who you were, you wouldn’t need guidance on the question on
who are you? you would know who you are… so who are you?

well, I am a good person…

That tells me more about who you are then any other answer you have given…
but what does it mean? does it mean you don’t run over little children in your car?
is that the standard we are looking at? a pretty low standard if that is it…

well, I believe in liberal standards…

that’s nice but what does that mean? to say you are liberal means you
are accepting a standard outside of yourself which means nothing unless it
has specific meaning or a specific course of action…so who are you?

I am a nice person… who doesn’t run over little children in my car…

that ok, but it still doesn’t tell me anything about you… are you a good human being?

Well, I guess so, I guess I am a good human being…
I don’t know what a good human being means…

and that is my point… you don’t know what a good human being is…

you can tell me your job and your pay grade and you educational level,
who you pray to, but you can’t tell me if you are a good human being
and you can’t tell me who you are… so who are you?

I am …

so who are you?

Kropotkin

Why does this question have to be answered?

Why are you asking it? What is it that you want to know?

K: Well, I know who I am, I am just looking for some guidance on the question…

If you knew who you were, you wouldn’t need guidance on the question on
who are you? you would know who you are… so who are you?

Kropotkin

So you’re asking yourself this question. Okay.

Maybe it would be clearer if you phrased it as “Who am I?”

K: is your mission to be clear or to find out who you are?
is my mission to be clear or to find out who I am?
what is more important? the answer or the question?

Kropotkin

You’re asking me? :evilfun:

2op. Those are descriptions of aspects about you or things you do, none of which are you - the whole and not parts of that.

  • which is why it is dumb to judge people upon their aspects imho. I mean who is guilty? especially how does original sin make any sense when we didn’t make ourselves.

take anyone and put them into a different environment and situation, and they don’t act like themselves [as people often note about criminals they know]. that’s how crime occurs, and how ordinary people in war situations can turn into child killers and attack their former neighbours.

K: as I think further upon this answer, I am struck by the need phyllo for example
and others, to make the question clear… to be able to put the question into a nice, neat,
labeled box in which they can then answer the question from a set series of already
formulated answers that we have readily available… How are you? when ask, one whips
out the formulaic answer, OH, I am fine today and how are you? being able to
answer such questions relieve ones from actually thinking about the question…
just put the question into a box and then give a formula answer… that is why
phyllo (and not just him, but most here at ILP) wants to turn tough questions into
simply formulaic answers, oh, I am fine today… but what if… what if…
instead of turning the question into some easily answered box, take the question as it
is… Who are you?.. don’t just ask questions that turn that question into
a label, a box, that allows a formulaic answer… Who are you, is the essential question
of being human… who are you… dares to ask, how are you human… not your name
or your job or your religion but dares us to face that which is us… who are you?
can anyone answer this without a formula answer? or by putting the question into
easily answered boxes that doesn’t require thought, just a, I am fine and how are you?

WHO ARE YOU?

Kropotkin

Are you familiar with the SF series Babylon 5?
http://toscapetheserpentstongue.blogspot.ca/2012/07/five-fundamental-questions-from-babylon.html
The Vorlons asked “Who are you?” and they meant something quite specific by that, which was important to them — not to the people they asked.
The Shadows asked “What do you want?”
In both cases, the question really meant: “By what means can I control you to be and do what I want?”

So, if anyone asks you those questions, be wary of responding honestly.
For your own self, it’s enough if you feel okay in your skin, in your desires.

K: I am quite familiar with B5 as I even own the series set and watch it at the time…
now 20 years ago, dam do I feel old, anyway, my intentions are not so sinister…
I am as always trying to get people to reevaluate, to follow Nietzsche and
to understand it is not enough to have the courage of your conviction, but the
courage for an attack upon your convictions…

Kropotkin

Am I, then, a sum of my convictions?
I don’t think it’s that easy.
Animal, vegetable or mineral?
Yes.
Can I defend it?
Probably not against a virulent opponent.

You like to be vague and unclear.

The more muddled the better because that shows you’re doing “profound” philosophy.

If you don’t have any answers, then you believe that you are as smart as Socrates.

Well, I don’t think that’s philosophy at all. I think that the goal of philosophy is to get answers and the way to get answers is to be clear and focused. If you ask a precise question, then you may get an answer. If you ask a muddled question, then you won’t get anything useful.

Of course, an answer may still be beyond your reach or beyond the reach of any human.

Phyllo: You like to be vague and unclear.

K: I am asking questions that force people to think and often times they
resemble Rorschach test because the questions are a reflection of
what we think is or isn’t “good” philosophy… I am not trying to make it
fun or easily answered, I am trying to confront you with questions you have
never thought about and don’t know how to answer… I am trying to be the
“bad” conscience you should already have…if it looks “vague and unclear”,
I would suggest that is how you read the question and not at all how the
question is asked…

P: The more muddled the better because that shows you’re doing “profound” philosophy.
If you don’t have any answers, then you believe that you are as smart as Socrates.

K: I am doing profound philosophy… you ought to try it someday…
and as far as being as smart as Socrates, I have no idea who was smarter and
frankly I don’t care…

P: Well, I don’t think that’s philosophy at all. I think that the goal of philosophy is to get answers and the way to get answers is to be clear and focused. If you ask a precise question, then you may get an answer. If you ask a muddled question, then you won’t get anything useful.

K: having a muddle question is in the eye of the beholder… is the goal of philosophy
to get answers or…or is the goal of philosophy to gain knowledge of who we are…
Socrates said, “know thyself” and Nietzsche said, “become who you are”
where do the answers exist in those two maxims?
and as far as “getting anything useful”, you have to define, what is the useful?

P: Of course, an answer may still be beyond your reach or beyond the reach of any human.
[/quote]
K: and you punted… you simply said the question was too “vague and unclear” and then
you said the “answer may be beyond the reach of any human” and thus we don’t
need to bother ourselves with such things because the question was too vague and
beyond my reach… perhaps that is why you don’t know “profound” philosophy…
you reject questions that might be too hard to answer as “vague and unclear”
and “beyond my reach” whereas I relish those questions as being the type
of questions that demand attention…

I take the question “who are you” as a serious question that demands attention
from us and demands we pay attention to it because it is a fundamental question
about finding out who we are… in accordance to Socrates and Nietzsche…
you know… profound questions…

Kropotkin

When someone else asks you a question, you are not necessarily impelled or compelled to answer at all, and certainly not to answer it fully and thoughtfully.
Of course, when most people ask a question, they don’t expect, or want, a three-volume exposition on the subject: they want a certain piece of information.

How are you? - generally wants no more than to check that one’s fellow citizen is not in need of assistance at this time. If we ask this of everyone we meet during the day, we collect a sense of the wellness quotient of our community - and impart the same impression to the other persons we’ve met. If three out of the four people we meet answer: “I have a nasty cold.” we know there is a contagious, but non-life-threatening bacterial infection to watch out for. If two of them answer, “Okay, except I couldn’t sleep too well with all the noise from that nightclub on my street,” you know there is situation might have to be addressed. And so on.
Similarly with other formulaic questions regarding work, home life or children: the questioner wants 1. to show an interest in his neighbour and 2. to gain one limited piece of information and 3. to get a measure of the general level of contentment/prosperity/welfare of his community.
There are such formulaic, limited-purpose questions that specifically apply to an office work-place, a school, a hospital ward, a construction project, a train trip, etc.

Nobody, not even Socrates, and certainly not some random stranger - has the right to ask “Who are you?”, except to verify your credentials for admittance to a place, event or conversation. In those cases, all they want, and all they’re entitled to, is a designation: name, rank, function, clearance level.

A psychotherapist might legitimately (and under seal of confidentiality) ask you to consider the question more comprehensively, but can also only deal with part of the answer at any one time. Not your designations: she has that on file. Not your current state of wellness: she can see that in your bearing and manner. What might be most relevant to such an interlocutor in such a situation will be on the order of : Which aspect of your identity has been drawing the most of your attention and energy? And why?

If you wish to contemplate your own identity as a whole… You still can’t. It’s an aggregate of genetic heritance, physical development, talents, proclivities, potential, ambition, experience, memory, relationships, education, thought processes, emotional responses, ideas - a lifetime-thus-far of input and output. By the time you finish thinking about one aspect, it’s already changed from the one you began contemplating. You can integrate ideas and a body of knowledge, but you can’t keep an entire personality under observation at once.

Now you think that you can read my mind.

Even a clearly stated, focused question may not be answerable because there are limits to human knowledge and understanding. Once you comprehend that fact, you can stop babbling about that particular question.

K: and until we push all the way, how do we know those limits? where exactly are those limits?
I can’t find the limit to human knowledge and understanding until I push it to the end…
you learn your limits as you push… I learned that in cross country and track…
what was my limit in the 440? I didn’t know until I push it as far as it would go…
I found out my limit in the 440 was 58.1 but others were able to push it further along
because they were better runners then me… my best for the 3 mile is 16:16
that was my limit in running the 3 mile and I was by no means the best runner
in my class, little less on the team…
it is only by engaging can we find that limit of human knowledge and understanding…

so give it a go… push your limit and you might find out your limit is actually much
further along then you thought…

Kropotkin

You think that you know more about me than you do. You don’t even comprehend what I have written in this thread, yet you are analyzing my thoughts and experiences … something which you have no access to.

K: you believe there to be a limit to human knowledge and understanding…
I believe the only way to know WHERE that limit is by pushing as far and as hard
as we can… in 1895 or so, a British scientist said that science has
gone as far as it can go, now it is just about filling in the details…
he thought that science had reached its limit in 1895 and we all
know how right he was…I don’t believe in limits in knowledge or
understanding… and I will push as far as I can to prove that…
I can only run a 16:16 3 mile because that is a far as my body pushed
will go… (mind you that was 40 years ago, now I can do 3 miles in about
an hour, maybe…)so how far your limit of knowledge and understand is
is only knowable by pushing your limits as far as it will go…

don’t accept limits or boxes or nice easy questions that allow easy answers…
push your limits… go out of your comfort zone and push your limits…

Kropotkin

Well, I know where this is going.

K: actually you don’t…

Kropotkin