Why am I me?

[Violet]

and that's the case with the proposition "I am me". It's necessarily true by virtue of its logical form.

Exactly.

The words "I" and "me" have the same semantics -- just as the words "he" and "him" have the same semantics (they just change words depending of the grammatical position in a sentence). Seeing as we have to accept the Law of Identity to be self-evident (to deny it is to completely undermine reason itself, and leaves us incapable of logical thought), if follows necessarily that I == me (I am me).

I (of course) accept that I am me. But I do not accept answering a question as to why this is so with repeating the statement that it I am so... that is what I am criticizing here, noting it is identical to any other form of 'circular reasoning'.

To say that it is not necessarily true that I am me, or that the proposition "I am me because I am me" is not a strong argument because it uses circular reasoning would be like saying that it is not necessarily true that A is A, or that the proposition "A is A because A is A" is not a strong argument because it uses circular reasoning.

I am not disputing the truth of the statement 'I am me'... I am disputing the reasoning behind it (by asking "why are you you, I have assumed that you are you to begin with. Observe, if I ask you why is the sky blue, I have assumed that it is so in my question). If all you have for reasoning that you are you... is that you are... then I very strongly argue that you have no idea why you are who you are, or even have no idea who you are to begin with. If all that makes you yourself is that you are... you must be really boring. Like a rock sort of boring.

If you accept the law of identity (A ≡ A), then you have to accept that I am (necessarily) me. If you don't accept the law of identity, or that I am not (necessarily) me, then you're talking nonsense.

I happen to have written a fair deal on aspects of identity (ie: name, location, time, definition, subjectivity). I consider identity to be the collection of everything that describes us. If the only thing you have to describe yourself is that you=you... I feel very safe in saying that there is nothing to describe, and you are asserting that a thing exists that does not (ie: God is God, because He is God). It is really very weak of the person asserting it... and it is to the benefit of nobody.