4 ms·

> I’m suspicious whenever someone says, “I’m an (adjective) (noun).” Why did you need to say, “I’m a great tennis player,” “I’m a deep thinker,” or “I’m a gener

by ryandv 1y ago

> I’m suspicious whenever someone says, “I’m an (adjective) (noun).” Why did you need to say, “I’m a great tennis player,” “I’m a deep thinker,” or “I’m a generous person”? Instead, why not simply play tennis, regardless of how great you are? Or think as deeply as you want? Or be generous? Which is why the whole "identification" fad is bullshit. Why bother identifying as a singer if you cannot sing? Just a continuation of this postmodern delusion that puts the cart before the horse and elevates language and symbols about reality over reality itself.

dylan604 1y ago
Most of the time, you don't have to walk the walk though. With the sports example, you can drop being great at it while talking to people at a bar or dinner party or online as you can't be asked to prove it right then and there. If you claim to be a good singer, you can pretty much do that at any time so that's a bit harder.
wredcoll 1y ago
When people talk about their own identity, they very rarely mean something like "great at singing". I admire your confidence that reality is so easily measured and categorized though. Personally, as I grow older, I find more and more exceptions to things I once thought of as immutable truth.
- ryandv 1y ago
  No, my point is that the concept of identity is nonsense. Show me a proof of the existence of an "identity" and I will furnish you proof of the soul and god.
  - wredcoll 1y ago
    Sure, just as soon as you show me the proof of existence of "thoughts" and that you exist as something other than an illusion in my mind. How about the existence of numbers? The proof of 1+1=2? We humans have words for lots of things that only exist as abstract concepts without a physical embodiment. Identity is one more of those and it's trivial to understand its application to real people.
    - ryandv 1y ago
      > semantic drift and inaccurate (or even lacking) definitions for the word "god," which is probably better understood in modern English as "mind" or "mental construct" or "the abstract" (as contrasted with the "concrete" or physical body a la Descartes, in a similar fashion to the distinction between the rarefied air of mathematical models, and the hard reality of physical law). [0] Right. We have that thoughts exist only if identities exist; identities exist only if gods exist; and that gods are made out of the same mind-stuff as mathematics, thought, and abstraction. In fact it sounds like your position is tantamount to saying that gods exist if and only if identities exist, which was to be demonstrated. One wonders why one regards such viewpoints as "secular" (or even, scientific!) when they still bear the hallmarks of what was once regarded as "spiritual" or metaphysical thought. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43929408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43929408
      - wredcoll 1y ago
        If you want to define "god" as a definition for abstract concepts, I can't stop you, although I doubt many would agree. The difference is that things like mathematics and identities are useful.
        ryandv 1y ago
        > If you want to define "god" as a definition for abstract concepts, I can't stop you, although I doubt many would agree. This is extremely ignorant. God has been likened to an intellect since the days of the Neoplatonists and Aristotle himself as a "nous" or universal mind. Cosmological arguments necessitating the existence of this god as a "first cause" to avoid fallacies of infinite regress ended up rooting much of medieval theology and mainstream religious scholarship. > The difference is that things like mathematics and identities are useful. Civilizations have centered around the mental and social construct of gods since the era of Mesopotamian god-kings that built and organized society.

by ryandv 1y ago

dylan604 1y ago

Most of the time, you don't have to walk the walk though. With the sports example, you can drop being great at it while talking to people at a bar or dinner party or online as you can't be asked to prove it right then and there. If you claim to be a good singer, you can pretty much do that at any time so that's a bit harder.

wredcoll 1y ago

When people talk about their own identity, they very rarely mean something like "great at singing". I admire your confidence that reality is so easily measured and categorized though. Personally, as I grow older, I find more and more exceptions to things I once thought of as immutable truth.

ryandv 1y ago
No, my point is that the concept of identity is nonsense. Show me a proof of the existence of an "identity" and I will furnish you proof of the soul and god.
- wredcoll 1y ago
  Sure, just as soon as you show me the proof of existence of "thoughts" and that you exist as something other than an illusion in my mind. How about the existence of numbers? The proof of 1+1=2? We humans have words for lots of things that only exist as abstract concepts without a physical embodiment. Identity is one more of those and it's trivial to understand its application to real people.
  - ryandv 1y ago
    > semantic drift and inaccurate (or even lacking) definitions for the word "god," which is probably better understood in modern English as "mind" or "mental construct" or "the abstract" (as contrasted with the "concrete" or physical body a la Descartes, in a similar fashion to the distinction between the rarefied air of mathematical models, and the hard reality of physical law). [0] Right. We have that thoughts exist only if identities exist; identities exist only if gods exist; and that gods are made out of the same mind-stuff as mathematics, thought, and abstraction. In fact it sounds like your position is tantamount to saying that gods exist if and only if identities exist, which was to be demonstrated. One wonders why one regards such viewpoints as "secular" (or even, scientific!) when they still bear the hallmarks of what was once regarded as "spiritual" or metaphysical thought. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43929408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43929408
    - wredcoll 1y ago
      If you want to define "god" as a definition for abstract concepts, I can't stop you, although I doubt many would agree. The difference is that things like mathematics and identities are useful.
      - ryandv 1y ago
        > If you want to define "god" as a definition for abstract concepts, I can't stop you, although I doubt many would agree. This is extremely ignorant. God has been likened to an intellect since the days of the Neoplatonists and Aristotle himself as a "nous" or universal mind. Cosmological arguments necessitating the existence of this god as a "first cause" to avoid fallacies of infinite regress ended up rooting much of medieval theology and mainstream religious scholarship. > The difference is that things like mathematics and identities are useful. Civilizations have centered around the mental and social construct of gods since the era of Mesopotamian god-kings that built and organized society.