Knot4Prophet.com Forum
https://forums.knot4prophet.com/

What Makes Us Who We Are?
https://forums.knot4prophet.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=57		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Knot4Prophet [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:58 am ]
Post subject:  What Makes Us Who We Are?
What makes us who we are?

Seems like an easy question, on the face of it. Or does it?

What really makes us who we are? Is it our inner strengths and virtues? What we value? What we own? Our religion or ideology?

None of the above.

What makes us who we are is what we do, period. By what we do I mean our actions, not our thoughts or intentions. You might say to me then, "But motivations are tangible way to gain insight into the personality of someone" and I would have to agree. The difference is that those motivations only may or may not define us. The degree to which our actions fall in line with our claimed motivations would be the degree to which our motivations describe us.

Why all the emphasis on actions?

Aside from your own self, none of the six billion plus people on this planet will ever see anything but your actions. What they see you as will be determined by your actions and your actions alone. They cannot see inside your head. They do not know what motivates you and even if you said what motivates you, you may be wrong, or lying. What cannot ever lie are actions. Sure, they can be misinterpreted based on their context, but generally the actions of others are easy to comprehend.

Yet you may persist and insist that what's on the inside is what really counts.

I'm saying the exact opposite. It doesn't matter what is on the inside. What is on the inside is only known by (possibly) one person, if they are introspective and intelligent enough to know themselves. But any evaluation of one's self could surely not marginalize "actions" into negligibility. If all I do is kill people, who I am is defined by those actions and not by my motivations, regardless how noble I may pretend they are.

What everyone else thinks we are (based upon our actions) is a clearer depiction of who we are than if we were to analyze our inner self based on motivations, likes/dislikes, hopes, etc. And what everyone else uses to determine who we are is our actions, period.

Some may yet argue still that someone who has only seen the actions of another, won't know that person's "true" self. What is the "true" self, though? If it was implied that the "true" self was determined by more than just actions and including motivations, feelings, intentions, or anything that could be created in the mind, it is all allusory and subject to re-evaluation, subject to change. So this "true" self again I say is defined purely by our actions.

Imagine a person whose actions include continuous lies. Now let's say that this person knows that he is a liar, and to himself does not lie. He is honest to himself. Does that make this an honest person? Of course not. When we define who we are, we base that implicitly in relation to everyone else and/or the physical world. Who I am is meaningless if not in the context of physical reality. So being honest with myself will not make me an honest person - only being honest with others can do that.

When reading an obituary of someone who just died, you will generally find it will list their accomplishments in life. Rarely will you see an obituary describe what that person's view of themselves was. Why is that? That’s because it’s our actions that define us in life and not our own personal evaluation of ourselves. An obituary is the final public statement about a person's life and primarily it discusses the actions of the dead person.

How do you evaluate who anyone else is? Say you have a close friend who confesses to you that their hopes and dreams are to become a famous actor. Say this close friend spends all their time drinking and partying and never attempts to become an actor. Does the fact that this person wants to become an actor in any way define them? Not until they act towards that goal. Then we know that there is a real motivation to become an actor.

People do what they want to do (unless they are imprisoned), whether they believe that statement or not. You cannot do anything BUT what you want. You can say you did something for someone else or so that bad things wouldn't happen, but you are still doing what you wanted to do, whether you enjoyed it or not.

Consider people that you do not know, personally. Do you "know" them? That would depend on how much of their actions to which you were privy but also would depend on the gravity of the action. Some actions are more defining than others. We all breathe. Breathing is an action. It does define us, but not in any differentiable way. The types of actions that do define us in a differentiable way are actions that are not common to everyone. No one remarks that in getting to know "Sue" part of what makes Sue who she is the fact that she breathes. We all know that she breathes. We all understand what it's like to breathe. What defines "Sue" is what she does that everyone else does NOT do. This is how I meant earlier that our actions are defined in context to everything else.

So what makes us who we are aren’t just the actions that we do, but rather the actions that we do that are unique from everyone else. This doesn't mean that the action must be totally unique, to partially define us, just that it must not be something that everyone does already and takes for granted, like breathing. If "Sue" were a golfer, then golf would be one of her defining characteristics, part of who she is, much more so than any mundane action that we all do.

There's an old saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Let's analyze this to punctuate the discussion.

The intent of the quote is that our intentions, even if good, can still lead us to hell. Why is that? It's because our actions define us to the world, not our intentions. And how I define myself to myself is totally irrelevant to how the world will define me.
Author:  abbyraze [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
you are so smart ;)
I enjoyed this post. I agree with you. Like with love..you can tell a person til your blue in the face that you love them but they won't believe it until you show them. Through actions and reactions towards that person. YEP. Acttions speak louder than words. so true. like me losing weight; I would sit and talk about how I should do it for eons but I didn't actually start losing it until I put my plans into action. You can talk about dieting and exercising until your 400 pounds it wont do any good until you acutally START the diet and exercise. Anyways, you're awesome Tim.
Author:  Knot4Prophet [ Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:16 am ]
Post subject: 
I received an email from a close friend regarding this thread which I'll now quote:

"Someone can choose to take no action at all, and in doing so give the world a glimpse into their inner self. Their lack of action can expose their character."

I would have to agree that someone choosing to take no action can indicate their true character. But let's examine that a little bit closer.

When can we do "no action" whatsoever? Impossible. We are in constant motion, unless we are dead. So if I choose not to help a friend, I am still NOT doing nothing. I'm still doing something. just perhaps not what my friend may have wanted. We can still evaluate this person by their choice of action, when they choose to do one thing in place of any number of other things they could do. In the words of the band Rush:

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Also in this email, my friend discussed another scenario whereby:

"Someone can also display actions that are completely opposite of their true character. Look at the serial killers. Some had families and were "respectable'' members of their communities. BTK serial killer comes to mind.
If they hadn't been caught then they would be remembered by others as being wonderful individuals. But that wouldn't be the truth. My point is that people are able to put on a facade and trick everyone (at least for a while if not indefinitely) around them. I would go so far as to say that most of us wear different masks when it comes to facing the world. It is a defense mechanism. Some have more masks than others, but few wear no mask at all. "

This example I will now dissect in order to apply my thesis to it. When you say that someone can display actions that are completely opposite of their true character, I would have to summarily disagree.

My disagreement hinges on the fact that we can only be ourselves. We cannot get away from being ourselves. Even if we lie or cheat, though the person we are lying to may be fooled as to our true character, our nature is still that of a liar. And using this serial killer example, I would ask then, what is their "true character"? Based on my evaluation a person's "true" self is the sum total of their actions.

If someone helps 10 000 people in their life and secretly murders five people, the fact that they helped ten thousand people does not negate that they are a murderer. The converse is also true, in that the five people that they murdered does not negate that they helped 10 000.

This person is the sum total of their actions. Is this person good or bad, then?

Both.

Like most of us.

When I say the world will define us based on our actions, I do not mean some of the people who know some of the things we do basing their opinion on such limited information, I mean the world as an absolute.... like an independent, disinterested observer. We must add up the evaluations of every person who knows the serial killer (including the people that they killed - their evaluations count too) and add their evaluations in order to get the clearest picture.

Now, is it always possible for any one person to truly know another person? Only to the degree which they know the other person's actions. The more actions of another person you observe, the better you will know them. If you were with someone 24 hours a day you would get to know them quite well. So we cannot let people who do not have a qualified opinion of someone else to be the final judgement on someone's character.

This leads me to another concurrent issue.

Let's imagine that there is a person whose sole intentions are malevolent yet whose actions are purely benevolent. Can we really evaluate them based on their inner malevolence that no one sees, when outwardly they are nothing but benevolent? Obviously not.

And we've all heard this terminology of people wearing "masks" and not being their true self. I disagree. The "masks" we choose to wear are just another facet, a reflection of our own inner self.

If you wear the mask 90% of the time, does it not become you?

Indeed it must.

So in closing, there are no "masks." We are always being our true self, even if our true self is a liar. If pretending to be happy is something that we do, then the character of that person is not hidden. They are someone who pretends to be happy, which is a very revealing characteristic.

You cannot NOT be yourself. Even when you think you are doing something that isn't "normal" for you, it is, or you wouldn't do it.

Even if someone puts a gun to your head and orders you to do something, whatever you choose to do still defines your character, whether you do as that person tells you or if you defy them, in the face of death.

We are the sum total of our actions. I could have the urge to murder ten thousand people daily, yet that doesn't make me a murderer. I could spend my days like Mother Theresa helping untold thousands, but if i murder just one person, I am still a murderer.

The evaluation of someone else's actions is as accurate as the knowledge of their actions is. Can we truly "know" anyone else, then?

Nope.

We can only know ourselves, with absolute accuracy.
Author:  Steffi [ Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:17 am ]
Post subject: 
Well... what makes us who we are. Who we are is our SELF. That is a mixture between the ME and the I. The I is impulses, genes, temper, etc. The ME is the social part. What others say about us and how they react towards is. Together they are the SELF. The all in all of our thoughts and actions.
Author:  Knot4Prophet [ Thu May 01, 2008 7:26 am ]
Post subject: 
Steffi wrote:
Well... what makes us who we are. Who we are is our SELF. That is a mixture between the ME and the I. The I is impulses, genes, temper, etc. The ME is the social part. What others say about us and how they react towards is. Together they are the SELF. The all in all of our thoughts and actions.


The self can neither be separated from "impulses, genes, temper" nor can it be separated from its social aspect. There are no societies of one person. You are simply labelling the distinction I already gave, of our endo-self from our exo-self and calling one "me" and the other "I."

And I still say that nothing in your category of the "I" part of the self has any real definition of our character, unless it is actually expressed. If it is unexpressed, it may as well not exist, in so far as determining what our character is. If it is expressed, then it has become "action" and defines us. And by "defines us" I mean defines us to everyone else, not to ourselves. Our opinion of our own character is too biased to be reliable and it's even natural for humans to inquire of others about their own character.

Furthermore, who we are is determined by everyone else's opinion of our actions, not our own, because a social context is inescapable and implicit and because our own opinion has no merit. We wouldn't need to know "who" we are if there was only person. The person could define himself anyway he chooses, in that case, and could never be "wrong." Sure we may disagree with everyone else about their assessment of us, but that doesn't necessitate that the disagreement has any merit.

If you have thoughts about killing someone, does that make you a killer? Will other people see you as a killer? Of course not. When we determine "who" someone else is, we go by what their actions are, because that is all to which we have access. Their actions show what is on the inside. What is on the inside may or may not get expressed and is of little, if any value in determining "who" they are in comparison to their actions, which definitely show just that.
Author:  Steffi [ Thu May 01, 2008 9:49 am ]
Post subject: 
Knot4Prophet wrote:

The self can neither be separated from "impulses, genes, temper" nor can it be separated from its social aspect. There are no societies of one person. You are simply labelling the distinction I already gave, of our endo-self from our exo-self and calling one "me" and the other "I."


Correct.

Knot4Prophet wrote:
And I still say that nothing in your category of the "I" part of the self has any real definition of our character, unless it is actually expressed. If it is unexpressed, it may as well not exist, in so far as determining what our character is. If it is expressed, then it has become "action" and defines us. And by "defines us" I mean defines us to everyone else, not to ourselves. Our opinion of our own character is too biased to be reliable and it's even natural for humans to inquire of others about their own character.


Not a definition, no. Together with the "me" it becomes the self. And then it defines character.

Knot4Prophet wrote:
Furthermore, who we are is determined by everyone else's opinion of our actions, not our own, because a social context is inescapable and implicit and because our own opinion has no merit. We wouldn't need to know "who" we are if there was only person. The person could define himself anyway he chooses, in that case, and could never be "wrong." Sure we may disagree with everyone else about their assessment of us, but that doesn't necessitate that the disagreement has any merit.


I'm glad you see that character definition mostly comes from the "outside". I agree. However, your own opinion has merit, even when disagreeing with the outside. That then, the disagreement, is also a character trait.

Knot4Prophet wrote:
If you have thoughts about killing someone, does that make you a killer? Will other people see you as a killer? Of course not. When we determine "who" someone else is, we go by what their actions are, because that is all to which we have access. Their actions show what is on the inside. What is on the inside may or may not get expressed and is of little, if any value in determining "who" they are in comparison to their actions, which definitely show just that.


If you think about killing people you are someone who thinks about killing people. Just because it isn't put into action doesn't necessarily mean that it's meaningless. However, if you don't even talk about it, it makes it harder to make it part of the definition.

I wouldn't completely rule thoughts out in defining character, what about the "functioning depressed"? Those who do the same things as others and yet - feel nothing or just bad things. Does it not count at all? Or only when expressed and the expression is an action?
Author:  Sug [ Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
First of all, HEY KNOT!! Long time no see...

Well after years of having disappeared, I've come across your website, and joined for the sake of some good discussions. I really enjoyed this post actually. Something that I agreed with.

For example, I call myself a Christian... but does calling myself one actually make it true? Or is it more through the things that I say and do that demonstrates who I am and what I believe and stand for? We are what we say and do, not what we say. So then my motivation for my actions and words, are the fact that those are what make me who I am. How do I want to be remembered on this earth????
Author:  Knot4Prophet [ Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:29 am ]
Post subject: 
Hey Sug! Nice to see you, again. I won't point out that your very second post was about sex and on the sex forum. Oh damn - I just did point it out, didn't I?

So yeah, what we "do" defines us. :wink:
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/