Why am I me?

[Edwardo Piet]

"Why am I me?" you are you because you're not someone else.

[Violet]

"Why am I me?" you are you because you're not someone else.

Without turning it into a circle... please explain "Why am I not someone else?".

And once you've done that one... repeat the question with the new reasons over and over (but never make a circle, because you complain about the religious doing that all the time, and call it faith).

Or conversely, you could keep answering me, and letting me ask the questions.

[Edwardo Piet]

You are not someone else because then you wouldn't be you!!!

[Violet]

You are not someone else because then you wouldn't be you!!!

Remember:

Without turning it into a circle

but never make a circle, because you complain about the religious doing that all the time, and call it faith)

Your position is one of faith. Circular faith, in fact. You just made a circle of faith (aka tautology):

you are you because you're not someone else.

Me because I ≠ someone else.

You are not someone else because then you wouldn't be you!!!

Not someone else because someone else ≠ me.

Is the next line going to be "Me because I am not someone else?"

Would you like to try again?

---

Though it detracts from the exercise: why am I and them not one and the same?

---

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not making an argument because no argument is required. The question is like asking "Why is a rock a rock and not something else?" We define ourselves as necessarily not someone else and someone else as necessarily not ourselves. This is a matter of definition not argument. We are ourselves for the same reason a rock is a rock, because it by definition is what it is.

[Violet]

I'm not making an argument because no argument is required.

I stated my position, and you disagreed with it... hence arguing.

The question is like asking "Why is a rock a rock and not something else?" We define ourselves as necessarily not someone else and someone else as necessarily not ourselves.

You seem to be awfully bold in making that claim... you and 'I' could be the universe attempting to know itself, and therefore you and I are both me, the universe. Why do I have to share a complete connectedness with myself to be me?

While you ponder that... consider the impossibility of yours not being a position of faith.

This is a matter of definition not argument. We are ourselves for the same reason a rock is a rock, because it by definition is what it is.

All definitions are arguable (as can be demonstrated when philosophy is discussed). A rock is also a vitamin tablet for giants, a hiding place for snakes in a desert, a big empty space for the neutrino, and a gateway to another dimension of the creator(s). We all define things individually. What do you see in the smeared ink... and is it what I see... and what a dog sees... and what a god sees? Not likely... but then I could be wrong. I actively think I am not wrong, and fully admit my faith in the position. Do you not?

[Edwardo Piet]

We are us because if we weren't us it wouldn't be *us* asking the question it would be other people. It's the anthropic principle and it's fucking simple.

[Yahadreas]

"Why am I me?" you are you because you're not someone else.
...
You are not someone else because then you wouldn't be you!!!
...
I'm not making an argument because no argument is required. The question is like asking "Why is a rock a rock and not something else?" We define ourselves as necessarily not someone else and someone else as necessarily not ourselves. This is a matter of definition not argument. We are ourselves for the same reason a rock is a rock, because it by definition is what it is.
...
We are us because if we weren't us it wouldn't be *us* asking the question it would be other people. It's the anthropic principle and it's fucking simple.

Exactly. It's a really simple point: I am me because the claim "I am not me" is a contradiction. In a sense, it is a tautology, as Saerules says. But this doesn't make the claim weak. In fact, the tautology is perhaps the most valid of arguments (a bachelor is an unmarried man, for example). And the facts that its negative is necessarily false, and that the law of the excluded middle is a self-evident axiom, we are left with the undeniable conclusion that I am me because... I am me.

[Edwardo Piet]

Tautology is the only form of proof.

[Violet]

We are us because if we weren't us it wouldn't be *us* asking the question it would be other people. It's the anthropic principle and it's fucking simple.

And there you do it again... *sigh*

Exactly. It's a really simple point: I am me because the claim "I am not me" is a contradiction. In a sense, it is a tautology, as Saerules says. But this doesn't make the claim weak. In fact, the tautology is perhaps the most valid of arguments (a bachelor is an unmarried man, for example). And the facts that its negative is necessarily false, and that the law of the excluded middle is a self-evident axiom, we are left with the undeniable conclusion that I am me because... I am me.

Here's another example of an argument supported by itself.

"The Bible is the word of God."
Why do you say that?
"Because it is written in the Bible."
Why does it being written in the Bible make you think so?
"The Bible is infallible."
Why do you think it is infallible?
-repeat from 1 indefinitely-

The above is just as self evident, and just as faith based.

and the facts that its negative is necessarily false, and that the law of the excluded middle is a self-evident axiom, we are left with the undeniable conclusion that I am me because... I am me.

You might, for example, notice that you have avoided answering the question. You've asserted one thing, twice. Our very hold to logic is a matter of faith... this isn't to suggest that there is anything wrong with either logic or anything else which only has evidence from itself. But there is something wrong with people not discussing "faith-based" things when everything they know is faith-based.

Tautology is the only form of proof.

People can prove things in a number of ways that don't make logical sense. What you mean to say, is that 'tautology is the only form of logical proof', is it not?