Identity, cause or effect?

Cannibal Ox

Identity, is it expressed through action or prior to action? Does it cause an action or is it an effect of action?

Or in other words, if a man sleeps with a woman, does he sleep with the woman because he is heterosexual, or by sleeping with a woman does he become heterosexual?

Which'd lead into the sub-question, if identity is expressed, how is identity formulated? Is it socially constituted, or, if it isn't expressed, is it part of your nature?

So, if sleeping with a woman express identity, then heterosexuality has to be constituted in the act, rather then prior to the act. Whereas, if sleeping with a woman is caused by heterosexuality, then it would be constituted prior to the act, and caused by human nature.

Inspired by

Nietzsche wrote:

“‘the doer’ is merely a fiction added to the deed – the deed is everything.

(identity as expressed)

Against

Descartes wrote:

I think therefore I am

(identity as prior)

Black Swan

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Identity, is it expressed through action or prior to action? Does it cause an action or is it an effect of action?

Is this question similar to the one posed by William James in his "Bear in the Woods" analogy?

You are walking through the forest. It is a pleasant day. All of a sudden a bear jumps out from behind a large tree and roars! You run.

James asked the question: "Do we run from the bear because we are afraid, or do we become afraid because we run?"

James took the position that bodily reactions precede emotions; i.e., after running from the bear (reaction), we interpret our running as resulting from fear (emotion).

nyarlothothep

I would like to know how he justifies that argument. In my opinion thoughts are objective actions which aren't perceivable by other humans until they are actualized in speech or action, except for the universe and the actor. Hence a persons identity imo is sculpted between environmental influences and the components of their internal state, ie predispositions towards certain actions based on past reactions to comparable situations.

Cannibal Ox

Is this question similar to the one posed by William James in his "Bear in the Woods" analogy?

I think it is slightly different. In that analogy, I'd focus on bear and man, while he's focusing on the emotional response to the bear by the man. I think he's probably closer to the truth in terms of emotional drives, but I'm more interested in how identity is formulated in that situation.

So, in running is the man a coward? Or, did he run because he is a coward? And the bear too! Does the bear attack him because it is a savage creature? Or in attacking the man does the bear become savage?

That is possibly a little ridiculous sounding. To try it another way, if he ran because he was afraid, it'd fit nicely into him running because he was a coward. If he became afraid because he ran, it'd fit nicely into him becoming a coward because he ran.

Again, maybe a little ridiculous, but in a way I think the second version, as formulating identity through the act, maybe gives more space for free will then one which says identity causes the act.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I would like to know how he justifies that argument. In my opinion thoughts are objective actions which aren't perceivable by other humans until they are actualized in speech or action, except for the universe and the actor. Hence a persons identity imo is sculpted between environmental influences and the components of their internal state, ie predispositions towards certain actions based on past reactions to comparable situations.

I think for this to work you'd need to pluck thoughts out of a vacuum. You can't make rational decisions based on objective thoughts if you have emotional, social, biological processes affecting your thought process. I don't see how you can disassociate them from your thought process, unless you are plucking thoughts out of a vacuum.

nyarlothothep

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think for this to work you'd need to pluck thoughts out of a vacuum. You can't make rational decisions based on objective thoughts if you have emotional, social, biological processes affecting your thought process. I don't see how you can disassociate them from your thought process, unless you are plucking thoughts out of a vacuum.

What I meant is not that thoughts are objective as in rational but in the sense that there is an argument I think by Arendt if I remember my philosophy correctly, that actions are only observable or objective, irc this relates to intent not being a valid defence in a court of law. Hence the aphorisms a person is defined by his actions, you are what you do etc. But I would argue that thoughts exist as things which are perceived by the individual and the universe in a quantum sense, in the sense that a superimposition of states can collapse, again irc, if its detected, but the detector doesn't need to be human. So the coming into being of thoughts are recorded in the universe or affect it in a very tiny way by virtue of coming into being. I think that one day thoughts will be observable through technology, then they will become regarded as just another type of action in the same way speech or doing something are forms of action. Thoughts in my opinion play a significant role in developing a persons identity in conjunction with actions which serve to validate those thoughts for the person. I think we generally narrate a story of ourselves to ourselves and act in a way, externally, which "proves" the truth of the tale to ourselves. Of course that story is affected by the outer world and when those actions don't go according to plan a person may change their story accordingly. Easy way out, its a bit both, environment and self.

I think though that there is a fair point in that doing something based on intent reinforces that intent. If someone is afraid of dogs and that person runs away from a dog, then running away from the dog reinforces their fear of dogs. And I'm beginning to see where you're coming from in the way phobias are developed, in that in the first instance someone might run away from a dog in a dangerous situation and will become convinced through the effort to survive the attack (running away) that they are afraid of dogs because all situations involving dogs are like the first one, the choice to run away establishes the precedent of fear for future situations inolving dogs as a survival mechanism.

Omentum

[Cannibal Ox;72288496]Identity, is it expressed through action or prior to action?[/QUOTE]

Both...

[Cannibal Ox;72288496] Does it cause an action or is it an effect of action?

[/QUOTE]

Neither....It is the action.


[Cannibal Ox;72288496]
Which'd lead into the sub-question, if identity is expressed, how is identity formulated?[/QUOTE]

It is neither expressed or formulated. It just is

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

What was it that Marx said- 'It is not the consciousness of man which determines his being, but his being which determines his consciousness'?

I'd feel its somewhere in between the two extremes. To take your example of a man sleeping with women and whether or not he was already heterosexual, I believe that in my case heterosexuality is a default setting. I'm naturally attracted to women and my behaviour reflects this. However doesn't mean my identity is entirely pre-set as my decisions in relation to women and their actions towards me, influence this area of my personality. And the same applies to other aspects of my identity and personality.