Identity is relative. Far from an expression of oneself, it is largely a performance for others, a pantomime in the limelight of another’s gaze. We have no self-concept except the one reflected in the imagined eyes of others. We can’t be someone without someone to be someone for.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
I find the statement we can't be someone without someone to be someone for to be a bit too absolute- does an individual in isolation truly cease to be someone? Identity, particularly shallow ones, are terribly overrated however.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DirectorArketer
Ironically, I think that too much independence from others destroys one's individuality, because we tend always to define ourselves relative to others, and to view ourselves through other's eyes. Much of what makes us someone is composed from vicarious perceptions of ourselves.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
I see your view but continue to disagree. Just because so much self image is crafted from the observations of others doesn't necessarily mean it's entirely thus- or that if it is, that it should be natural. Of course, the concept we are not meaningfully self-forming is a bit sad.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Whether it's natural or not depends on your definition of natural. Since it *ultimately* arises from the brain's biology, it could be regarded as perfectly natural. Regardless, being someone is superficial, and nowhere near as important as being something.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.