Who Are You?

"It is far better to be hated for who you are than to be loved for who you are not."

- Unknown 

      Who are you? Some say that we are simply the effects we have on the outside world, heavily emphasizing our actions surpassing what lies underneath. Others say that what the outside world says doesn't matter, only what we feel and think inside matters. I sit somewhere in the middle, combining what is inside with the effects we have on the world around us. I don't think we can be complete in our identity without combining the external with the internal. For some clarity, let's look at each position in a little more depth.

     Beginning with the external philosophy, it's not hard to see why some subscribe to this viewpoint. Our actions and impacts are the first things seen by others, not the underpinnings that cause said actions and impacts. When one sees obituaries or tributes, or even just descriptions, they don't, and can't, show what's inside. They instead show what's on the outside, what they did and said, in an attempt to demonstrate who that person was. Jerry spent a lot of time working on his car, he was a car junkie. Mark knew a great deal about psychology, it fascinated him like no other. Dan is very detail oriented and organized. This method is easy, simple, and it also allows people to have a much simpler view of life than actually is. Think real history versus what they teach kids. To an extent, this does have predictive qualities and can be useful for navigating life at a surface level. However, you're missing all the reasons why. These might not mean much to many, but you can't have the complete picture without them.

     On the flip side of this lies the internal philosophy. This concept holds that you are solely what is between your head, your thoughts and emotions, and not what others perceive you as. With this, you get the internal context of what makes up a person. Now, you can never take someone's word for what lies within. At worst people will filter out the bad, at best they aren't even aware of it. What you don't immediately see is: Jerry worked on his car so much to avoid his family. Mark had a need to control and predict everyone around him due to past trauma that he never dealt with, so he relentlessly sought to understand those around him. Last, Dan was riddled by OCD and anxiety, and so it drove him mad when his world was unorganized or mismanaged. However none of this can be known by the observer without the combinations of external behavior. So this might be comforting for some, but this can't help you understand or predict the world. Unfortunately, so many subscribe to this idea, and pawn their negative external effects off as purely the misconceptions of everyone else while taking credit for the good. To me, this philosophy is the most abused and least helpful for everyone involved.

     The only way to resolve the issues of either philosophy is to combine them. You need the external to know what's underneath, just as you need the underneath to explain the external.  You get enough to get by with the external method, but it doesn't really tell you about what's causing that outward behavior, about what makes up that person. When we know what actions a person regularly takes, we can extrapolate why they do what they do. When we know the what and the why, only then can we make a complete picture of a person. 

     I hope this has helped to explore some viewpoints on identity. In the next post I'll go into how you use the external to find the internal, and why it matters. Have a great night!

Dr. Didact