Just for Iroboto, bbspo, and partly for the hell of it, we can do this one at the same time:

Does personal identity ever exist outside of the context of the collective? I.e. Can we ever just "be ourselves" or is our "self" perpetually a reflection of our environment and the social context we live in?

I encourage you to peruse the following at your leisure:

Common Logical Fallacies:
Ad Hominem - attacking the arguer:
E.g. "Your whole argument sounds like that of someone who's been indoctrinated by some brainwashing catholic school"
E.g. "I hardly feel the need to take the word of someone who doesn't like Lady Gaga"
E.g. "You're nothing but a bible thumping Jew" (ok I threw this one in as a joke )

These are not arguments - the only points which should be in dispute are the ones made by the person.

Appeal to Authority - quoting some expert opinion on the matter as fact:
E.g. "My uncle is a doctor and he says ..."

Just a note about this one, sometimes you can quote a person as a source of information - not so much use it as an argument in favour of your point. Also, I hope this encourages people to put down their honest opinions on a matter - some of my most profound insights into truth have come from people just telling me how they feel.

Slippery Slope - jumping from one conclusion to another unrelated one without presenting an argument for their connection:
E.g. "If we investigate Artificial Intelligence, then we're going to end up with an army of vicious deadly robots which will annihilate the human race"

I want to point out the difference between this argument fallacy and the argument technique known as "Reductio Ad Absurdum". In Reductio Ad Absurdum you hypothetically take an argument to its logical conclusion (I.e. to the point of absurdity) to show when it breaks down and no longer applies.

Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc - A occurs before B, therefore A is the cause of B (similar to the slippery slope argument except that B has already occurred. The two argument fallacies are often used in conjunction):
E.g. "My mother ate chocolate sundaes all through her pregnancy and then when I got to puberty I got pimples"

Straw Man argument - distorting someone's perspective on a matter and then attacking that instead of the real argument. I.e. building a straw man, only to knock it down again.
E.g. You can see a great example of this in this thread between myself and Robinzz3:
posts 17 and 18.
In that case I simply worded my reply poorly which led to a straw-man argument - but this is another thing one needs to take care of.

There are others, but these are the ones that usually crop up. Of course, as Mama pointed out in the lead-up thread, sweeping generalisations without evidentiary support are not arguments and won't be accepted.

Wow i didn't know there were names for arguments I just post whatever comes to mind. Btw What course are you doing at uni?
Also all this identity talk was influenced by the area of study belonging so talking about it is like practicig for my hsc. Plus identity is a huge deal in high school which is associated with bullying and all so yea ya an easy topic to relate to

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

Does personal identity ever exist outside of the context of the collective? I.e. Can we ever just "be ourselves" or is our "self" perpetually a reflection of our environment and the social context we live in?

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbspo

...Btw What course are you doing at uni?...

I've finished my degree. Now I study for fun .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iratei

No.

I'm sensing a pattern here. Do I have to kiss you?

To answer your question: Yes we can be ourself. I don't find much use of this thread personally because what needs to be said has already been said in various other posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irobot0

To answer your question: Yes we can be ourself. I don't find much use of this thread personally because what needs to be said has already been said in various other posts

But who is our "self"? And can it exist in a social vacuum? I mean is it reasonable to attempt to behave in a way that comes completely naturally to you without regard for the social context? If so, are you actually being authentic to yourself?

I don't think that you can really be authentic to yourself if you don't react to the situation that you are in honestly - i.e. I don't believe that being yourself means that you behave the same way whether people are around or not. What do you think?

Honestly, the point of this thread was to alleviate my boredom, but it seemed that some people were interested in the subject and I thought it might make a nice subject for a thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

Does personal identity ever exist outside of the context of the collective? I.e. Can we ever just "be ourselves" or is our "self" perpetually a reflection of our environment and the social context we live in?

sounds like one of the essay options for legal studies i couldnt be bothered to do LOL

the answer is dynamic because everyone is a follower at some point, its easier to be the sheep because you get benefits.

but i do believe you can be, proof are in the history books, the so called losers at school, martyrs, having an opinion is another good reason and many more

Too long...my brain hurts.

I'm going back listening to Ke$sha and pretend I never read this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

Does personal identity ever exist outside of the context of the collective? I.e. Can we ever just "be ourselves" or is our "self" perpetually a reflection of our environment and the social context we live in?

The 'collective' is the sum of its 'parts' and the 'parts' all contribute to the 'collective.'
'Synergy,' on he other hand, makes 1+1=3 and 3-1=1 possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wysiwyg

The 'collective' is the sum of its 'parts' and the 'parts' all contribute to the 'collective.'
'Synergy,' on he other hand, makes 1+1=3 and 3-1=1 possible.

An excellent point Wysi. But if we take the gestaltist approach, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Perhaps that is why 1+1 may equal 3 .

I love your posts Fahed. Smart, funny and not not c*ck obsessed. Gaze away. As for your question. I think its really difficult to tease out who you really are from your environmental influences. It can be done though and I think its a large part of what Buddhists try to achieve through lifetimes of meditation practice and study. Putting yourself in isolation for long periods of time is another way, but, doesn't necessarily work on its own, you have to train your brain as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totka

I love your posts Fahed. Smart, funny and not not c*ck obsessed. Gaze away. As for your question. I think its really difficult to tease out who you really are from your environmental influences. It can be done though and I think its a large part of what Buddhists try to achieve through lifetimes of meditation practice and study. Putting yourself in isolation for long periods of time is another way, but, doesn't necessarily work on its own, you have to train your brain as well.

Thanks Totka, you're really sweet .

This is a really good point, that I hadn't even considered. Still your behaviour would have to, at least in part, adhere to some level of social convention. I'm just wondering now, whether this social convention wouldn't, at some level, be built in - which is why it's a social convention in the first place. Thanks, I'll think about this some more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

Just for Iroboto, bbspo, and partly for the hell of it, we can do this one at the same time:

Does personal identity ever exist outside of the context of the collective? I.e. Can we ever just "be ourselves" or is our "self" perpetually a reflection of our environment and the social context we live in?

I encourage you to peruse the following at your leisure:

Common Logical Fallacies:
Ad Hominem - attacking the arguer:
E.g. "Your whole argument sounds like that of someone who's been indoctrinated by some brainwashing catholic school"
E.g. "I hardly feel the need to take the word of someone who doesn't like Lady Gaga"
E.g. "You're nothing but a bible thumping Jew" (ok I threw this one in as a joke )

These are not arguments - the only points which should be in dispute are the ones made by the person.

Appeal to Authority - quoting some expert opinion on the matter as fact:
E.g. "My uncle is a doctor and he says ..."

Just a note about this one, sometimes you can quote a person as a source of information - not so much use it as an argument in favour of your point. Also, I hope this encourages people to put down their honest opinions on a matter - some of my most profound insights into truth have come from people just telling me how they feel.

Slippery Slope - jumping from one conclusion to another unrelated one without presenting an argument for their connection:
E.g. "If we investigate Artificial Intelligence, then we're going to end up with an army of vicious deadly robots which will annihilate the human race"

I want to point out the difference between this argument fallacy and the argument technique known as "Reductio Ad Absurdum". In Reductio Ad Absurdum you hypothetically take an argument to its logical conclusion (I.e. to the point of absurdity) to show when it breaks down and no longer applies.

Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc - A occurs before B, therefore A is the cause of B (similar to the slippery slope argument except that B has already occurred. The two argument fallacies are often used in conjunction):
E.g. "My mother ate chocolate sundaes all through her pregnancy and then when I got to puberty I got pimples"

Straw Man argument - distorting someone's perspective on a matter and then attacking that instead of the real argument. I.e. building a straw man, only to knock it down again.
E.g. You can see a great example of this in this thread between myself and Robinzz3:
posts 17 and 18.
In that case I simply worded my reply poorly which led to a straw-man argument - but this is another thing one needs to take care of.

There are others, but these are the ones that usually crop up. Of course, as Mama pointed out in the lead-up thread, sweeping generalisations without evidentiary support are not arguments and won't be accepted.

OMG, this is soo 'logical' but do I approve?

Quite interestingly, Fallacious arguments was in the course that I finished off last month as part of "Logical Argument" module.
Part of a Navy promotion course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

Just for Iroboto, bbspo, and partly for the hell of it, we can do this one at the same time:

Does personal identity ever exist outside of the context of the collective? I.e. Can we ever just "be ourselves" or is our "self" perpetually a reflection of our environment and the social context we live in?

I encourage you to peruse the following at your leisure:

Common Logical Fallacies:
Ad Hominem - attacking the arguer:
E.g. "Your whole argument sounds like that of someone who's been indoctrinated by some brainwashing catholic school"
E.g. "I hardly feel the need to take the word of someone who doesn't like Lady Gaga"
E.g. "You're nothing but a bible thumping Jew" (ok I threw this one in as a joke )

These are not arguments - the only points which should be in dispute are the ones made by the person.

Appeal to Authority - quoting some expert opinion on the matter as fact:
E.g. "My uncle is a doctor and he says ..."

Just a note about this one, sometimes you can quote a person as a source of information - not so much use it as an argument in favour of your point. Also, I hope this encourages people to put down their honest opinions on a matter - some of my most profound insights into truth have come from people just telling me how they feel.

Slippery Slope - jumping from one conclusion to another unrelated one without presenting an argument for their connection:
E.g. "If we investigate Artificial Intelligence, then we're going to end up with an army of vicious deadly robots which will annihilate the human race"

I want to point out the difference between this argument fallacy and the argument technique known as "Reductio Ad Absurdum". In Reductio Ad Absurdum you hypothetically take an argument to its logical conclusion (I.e. to the point of absurdity) to show when it breaks down and no longer applies.

Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc - A occurs before B, therefore A is the cause of B (similar to the slippery slope argument except that B has already occurred. The two argument fallacies are often used in conjunction):
E.g. "My mother ate chocolate sundaes all through her pregnancy and then when I got to puberty I got pimples"

Straw Man argument - distorting someone's perspective on a matter and then attacking that instead of the real argument. I.e. building a straw man, only to knock it down again.
E.g. You can see a great example of this in this thread between myself and Robinzz3:
posts 17 and 18.
In that case I simply worded my reply poorly which led to a straw-man argument - but this is another thing one needs to take care of.

There are others, but these are the ones that usually crop up. Of course, as Mama pointed out in the lead-up thread, sweeping generalisations without evidentiary support are not arguments and won't be accepted.

How about the "Loosers pass" argument..

This phase was coined in the old days of ''street drag racing" were one contender would sidle up to another and rev the engine in a challenge, once the race had begun and both cars were in full force enevitably one car would overtake the other and then take a strong lead, leaving the other challenger and car far behind.

At this point since there were no strict rules one would have considered the fastest car to have initially won the race to be the winner and since on the street the winning car would now slow down due to street hazards and road length, unofficially ending the race, since after all the loser was lagging far behind.

Now at this point the "Loosers pass" comes into play.
The latter car, the loser would see the other car had beat him and was slowing down to a normal speed however at this time the looser would accelerate greatly and flew past the winning car in a last attempt to regain any street cred lost.

The car would technically overtake the winning car, that by this time had almost stopped and drive onward in some sort of satisfaction in "winning".

However this was of course not winning, it is just a desperate attempt of the loser to regain status lost.

This is known as the "Loosers pass"...

Fahead of course is a master at the "Forum Losers pass"

I think I have made myself clear.

to find the "self" you must first destroy the " self " that others have created for you.

My eyes hurt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyBoyFreindIsGay

How about the "Loosers pass" argument..

This phase was coined in the old days of ''street drag racing" were one contender would sidle up to another and rev the engine in a challenge, once the race had begun and both cars were in full force enevitably one car would overtake the other and then take a strong lead, leaving the other challenger and car far behind.

At this point since there were no strict rules one would have considered the fastest car to have initially won the race to be the winner and since on the street the winning car would now slow down due to street hazards and road length, unofficially ending the race, since after all the loser was lagging far behind.

Now at this point the "Loosers pass" comes into play.
The latter car, the loser would see the other car had beat him and was slowing down to a normal speed however at this time the looser would accelerate greatly and flew past the winning car in a last attempt to regain any street cred lost.

The car would technically overtake the winning car, that by this time had almost stopped and drive onward in some sort of satisfaction in "winning".

However this was of course not winning, it is just a desperate attempt of the loser to regain status lost.

This is known as the "Loosers pass"...

Fahead of course is a master at the "Forum Losers pass"

I think I have made myself clear.

I'd actually never heard of this before, but you're right, I do that all the time. I'm not sure it's to 'regain status lost' so much as sometimes the argument doesn't always come to mind immediately. I do argue to win though, I can't deny that.

Thanks for the feedback

Just some notes:
1. you misspelled my name.
2. Is there any significance to the fact that you fluctuate between 'loser' and 'looser'?
3. This thread is over 6 months old, Dion revived it.

Do you have anything to say about the subject of the thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

I'd actually never heard of this before, but you're right, I do that all the time. I'm not sure it's to 'regain status lost' so much as sometimes the argument doesn't always come to mind immediately. I do argue to win though, I can't deny that.

Thanks for the feedback

Just some notes:
1. you misspelled my name.
2. Is there any significance to the fact that you fluctuate between 'loser' and 'looser'?
3. This thread is over 6 months old, Dion revived it.

Do you have anything to say about the subject of the thread?

1. you misspelled my name. -- I am aware of that.

2. Is there any significance to the fact that you fluctuate between 'loser' and 'looser'? -- One is English the other is slang.

3. This thread is over 6 months old, Dion revived it. -- Quiet here these days (cricket chirps).

Do you have anything to say about the subject of the thread? -- Of course not.

Hello. happy thoughts!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyBoyFreindIsGay

1. you misspelled my name. -- I am aware of that.

2. Is there any significance to the fact that you fluctuate between 'loser' and 'looser'? -- One is English the other is slang.

3. This thread is over 6 months old, Dion revived it. -- Quiet here these days (cricket chirps).

Do you have anything to say about the subject of the thread? -- Of course not.

Oh what an adorable koala!

Does that Koala have any infectious diseases I should know about?

I think that Star Trek character was a just a bit gay and a terrible potato-queen

My input on the subject.
It is really a bit of a ''trendy'' type question.
First you would have to consider other countries with far less wealth and social freedom than Australia.

Can someone ponder themselves and answer the question while sitting at the local cafe staring into a cappuccino before they go off to their well paid job and then secure home?

Yes they can, but it wouldn't mean a lot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyBoyFreindIsGay

My input on the subject.
It is really a bit of a ''trendy'' type question.
First you would have to consider other countries with far less wealth and social freedom than Australia.

Can someone ponder themselves and answer the question while sitting at the local cafe staring into a cappuccino before they go off to their well paid job and then secure home?

Yes they can, but it wouldn't mean a lot.

Perhaps someone could have their cappuccino with a group of friends, and they could all discuss it at length, learning from one another and encouraging thought on the matter. Perhaps it could become a favourite topic for stimulating debate during meet-ups in the cafe. Perhaps I'm living in the 1930's, but I can't help but keep trying.

Train is better for pondering deep thoughts .

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyBoyFreindIsGay

2. Is there any significance to the fact that you fluctuate between 'loser' and 'looser'? -- One is English the other is slang.

[/color].

No they're not. They're both English words which are spelt differently, pronounced differently and have completely different meanings. Slang and ignorance aren't the same thing.

As to the topic of the thread, I would have thought one would be more likely to be one's self when separated from the collective. When around other people you have to play nice and observe societies expectations of acceptable behaviour - including these days avoiding thought crime (look at how people are jumped on here on SS if they dare to speak outside the accepted PC version on issues). In the privacy of your own head you can be as subversive and politically incorrect as you like.

It's the same for other behaviours. Take Baddy for example. How many times has be informed us that he may or may not be wearing pants, yet how many of us have actually seen his tackle?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fahed

Perhaps someone could have their cappuccino with a group of friends, and they could all discuss it at length, learning from one another and encouraging thought on the matter. Perhaps it could become a favourite topic for stimulating debate during meet-ups in the cafe. Perhaps I'm living in the 1930's, but I can't help but keep trying.

Train is better for pondering deep thoughts .

OOOh YEah... nude coffee club at my place?!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_

I say it is possible.

One can aspire to it. Hamlet said ''Tis a consummation Devoutly to be wished.'

I hear Centrelink gives welfare to people of no fixed address.

And Wonderland says the Salvation Army must give free meals to any one who wants them.

Whom are these peoples? Is the middle one Tim Winton the OZ novelist?

^
yes it is; he follows James Mason (on Dunk Island in Age of Consent) and precedes Judith Wright at Bungendore.

I wonder if Malcolm Naden meets the OP's criteria?



He lived on nuts and berries and stolen food and slept under leaves and branches in the bush. Or perhaps, I'm being too literal?



.

the difficulty is that so much of what we do, who we are is defined by a comparison of sorts.

ie. you can't know what it feels like to be happy if you have never experienced sadness.

different people need different levels of social interaction in order to define themselves.
Time has also changed how we as individuals satisfy our need for interaction aswell. Digital communication has certainly been a significant contributer to this.

In responce to your question however.

We can certainly exist in a social vacuum but it is conditional on a few factors.
Isolation will deteriorate the individual, significant time alone will erode a personality because it becomes harder and harder to define what is personality and what is instinct and habit.
We need a social environment to define ourselves