Identity

1400 words, 6 minute read

I am who I am and always have been, at least since my birth, and always will be, at least until my death. I will always be who I am; how could I not be? I mean, who else could I be?

If I were not me, then either I would not be at all, bummer, or I’d be someone else. If I didn’t exist at all, oh well; but if I were someone else then that someone else would be who I am. So, any way you slice it, I am who I am. No matter what I am, where I am, or when I am, I am always myself. Sum, ergo ipse sum.

I never change no matter how much my circumstances (e.g. age, health, experience) change. Gertrude Stein was perhaps the first modern thinker to point out that we do not undergo metamorphoses of any kind. As she explained it, “We are always to ourselves young men and young women.” Ovid was the primary classical proponent of this concept. Our sense of ourselves never changes, never varies; who I am to myself is always the same.

***

So I am who I am, but what about U? Presumably, U R who U R. I am I, U R U, but why? Why am I, I? And why are U, U? Why am I not U? Well, suppose I were U and U were I. What would be different? Something? Everything?

Nothing! Nothing would be any different than it is now. In fact, it would not be possible to distinguish in any way between a world in which I am U and U R I and the world in which I am I and U R U.

The two states-of-affairs would be identical because nothing would have changed. In either case, I would be I and U would be U. I would know that I am I and not U and that U are U and not I, just as I do now. U would know the same.

So, R U U or R U I? Am I me or am I U? Obviously, these questions make no sense. Wittgenstein would label the propositions ‘meaningless’. They appear to be meaningful English sentences, but they are not. They are well formed pseudo-propositions, but they are non-sensical. We live in an Edward Lear world.

So if nothing changes, if nothing is any different, if there is no way to distinguish ‘I am I’ from ‘I am U’ or ‘U R U’, then do we have one state-of-affairs or two? Answer: one! It is a fundamental principle of metaphysics that no two things can be identical because identical → identity. Two pseudo-things turn out to be one actual thing.

Equality is not identity. We say A = B when A is not B but where A and B share something in common (e.g. quantity). Quantity is abstracted from concrete things. I have a pair of shoes; you have a pair of song birds. We can abstract quantity and, when we do, we find that the shoes and the birds are equal…but not identical; shoes do not sing!

If U and I can be swapped freely and without consequence, then is it not the case that I and U are identical, i.e. one and the same? It is likely that the first thing a baby learns after birth is the distinction between me and not-me; then second, the difference between U and not-me. U are not just not-me; you are alter-me, you are your own me, you are me to yourself.

Is it possible this bedrock distinction that forms the basis of a lifetime of cognition is utterly false? You bet it is! Talk about an original sin! Everything we think we know is an elaboration of a totally false premise; all that we do know are the corrections we make to that premise. By this account, knowledge is a ‘negative quantity’ with zero as its upper limit.  

If U and I are indistinguishable and therefore interchangeable, it doesn’t make any sense to speak of ‘U’ or ‘I’ in the first place, does it? But how so?

“Indistinguishable” – I’m a short, fat senior age male, you’re a tall, slim, 20 something female; how can we be indistinguishable? Either way, the world is left with one old man and one young woman; U have the exact same relationship to what U R (young and…) as I have to what I am (old and…).

“Interchangeable” – if U and I are indistinguishable in what sense is one of us different from the other? Answer: in no sense! So why distinguish between us? It is a distinction without a difference; we are interchangeable.

***

This is not some new epiphany. A guy named Jesus said much the same thing 2000 years ago: “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and he was quoting Leviticus, one of the five books of the Old Testament attributed to Moses (aka, the Torah). Not like yourself: U ≈ I; as yourself: U = I. U R I and I am U and ‘that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know’.

Four 20^th century prophets (John, Paul, George & Ringo) expressed this idea even more directly: “I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together” (I am the Walrus). I and U and he are indistinguishable.

So, shake me up, Sally, if you will, it won’t matter one jot; nothing will be any different than it is now. I will still be I and U will still be U. I would know that I am I, and not U, and U would know that U are U, and not me. Ultimately, we would both know the same thing (I am I) but we would each know it individually. Common known, uncommon knowing!

So, R U U, or R U me? Am I, I…or am I, U? Obviously, these questions make no sense now. Wittgenstein would label the underlying propositions ‘meaningless’. They are well formed pseudo-propositions; they look like English sentences but in fact they are non-sensical.

I am who I am, always and forever, never changing. Likewise U R who U R. Since we are indistinguishable and interchangeable (above), I am who U R and you who I am. Our identities are identical.

On the other hand, what I am changes continuously over my lifetime as does what U R. Further, what I am and what U R never intersect. No part of what I am is ever part of what U R. We may share some phenomenal qualities, but common qualities do not constitute identity. Shoes are not song birds.

We imagine we live in a world where permanence and change exist dialectically in perpetual flux. We don’t! In our world there is but a single ‘I’, manifested identically in uncountably many unique contexts. No context ever repeats.

Summary: Who I am or who U R never changes; who I am is who U R. On the other hand, what I am varies continuously. What I am never duplicates what I was or what I will be. Nor does it ever duplicate what U R, were or will be. What I am is perpetually novel and always unique. To be is to be once and only once. That’s the world we live in…now if only we could get used to living here.