Please help me shoot down this argument?

Question

A friend of mine is a professor, and surprised me when he said that there is no such thing as individuality! I said of course there is, but when asked to prove it I couldn't without relating to something or someone else (his proof). Help me out folks. I need a solid argument here.

Thanks for the input folks. I basically pointed out what you all said, like the fact that I can say "I", and the DNA thing, but he went on about how that is all connected to something else, therefore at best I'm just "an arbitrary point on an interconnected web"

Answer 1

Don't deduce from general principles, do it inductively...as a philosopher he would have to construct a logical proof that individuality does not exist (or more accurately, CANnot exist--you can prove something DOES exist or CANnot exist, but you can't prove it DOES not exist, because among other reasons, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). So, back on point: if his claim is that individuality CANnot exist, he must present a rigorous logical proof that it is so. In constructing a rigorous logical proof, he must appeal to logic, which, strictly speaking, is an outgrowth of set theory. The tenets of set theory accept as self-evident and necessary that elements of a set are mutually distinguishable and can be numbered and deliniated by any set of criteria the logician requires...thus, they are individual. If he makes a counter-claim that certain set members may be indistinguishable from one another and thus cannot be counted as individual, you may counter claim that an infinitely rigorous set that contains only one member would be by definition an "individual"...if that still doesn't work, tell him that the logic to which he is appealing is a function of mathematics and mathematics takes as self-evident the individuality of numbers--one is necessarily different from two and both of them from three, etc...if he says that you can have two apples and two oranges and thus "two" is not an individual, or that there are many equations that equal "two", tell him that those are but instances of the construct of "two", and that "two" itself, being a mathematical abstraction, is necessarily individual.
So, to sum up: He must prove to you that individuality cannot exist. In order to do this satisfactorily, he must appeal to a rigorous logical proof. If he does not, then he has not made an agrument, he has made a claim, and your inability to "prove" that individuality doesn't exist does not prove it doesn't exist(remember the absence of evidence thing;)...if he DOES provide a rigorous proof, he's appealing to logic, which in making application of set theory and by extension mathematics, intrinsically appeals to the very individuality he's trying to disclaim.
Best of luck.

Answer 2

As always most people don't understand the true nature of the question. The professor is saying that you cannot point out one thing without making a reference to something else. One fingerprint is not completely unique unless you can compare it to all the others and say "yes indeed there is no other exactly like this one."

I think to tackle this problem you have to realize it is, as with many philosophical questions, a semantics issue. You have to define what the word individuality really means. It can have several different meanings. It could either refer to the qualities that make one unique, or it could simply be the fact that you are refering to one entity.

The sentence "I am an individual" is true because The pronoun "I" refers to only one. See what he says to that.

Answer 3

Just because a subject is related to another, doesn't make it the same. It's not the similarities that make the individual distinct, but the differences. When you've sorted and catalogued them all, you'll find that nothing is exactly the same as anything else. For example, Dolly the sheep clone is much younger than Dolly the sheep (who was not a clone- another difference) yet they were the same in nearly every other way.

Take him two identical paperclips for an example. They are identical, and yet they both exhibit individuality, because they are not actually the same object. They share enough similarities to be considered the same thing, but they in fact exist as separate entities. Does that make sense?

Answer 4

The fact that individuality is defined through relating self to others does not disprove its existence. Also, things exist whether or not they can be proven. I guarantee you the earth has been orbiting the sun long before man was able to prove it. Your professor is just jacking with you and trying to get you to think.

Individuality is simply a concept that you are separate from everyone else which is kind of true if you think of your life and decisions, but untrue if you consider that your life and decisions affect others around you. I would call it a half truth, and if you really think about it half truths are whole lies.

Answer 5

He is probably arguing that all opinions and viewpoints come from prior sources and are shaped by popular, social, and familial influences.

However, since we are all uniquely influenced, and we all respond to the influences in different ways because of genetic personality traits, I'd say it would be very hard to argue AGAINST individuality. No two people have the EXACT same body of experience, and only twins have non-unique DNA, so I'd say everyone has a unique combination of "nature" and "nurture" that makes individuality hard to deny.

Sociology is powerful. We tend to believe what we are taught to believe by our parents and our society. But as sentient beings, we have the ability to understand the forces impacting our decisions and opinions, and therefore, we have the power to change our minds and actions. This sentience gives us the power to be individuals as well.

Really, I can't see what point your professor could make that couldn't be countered.

Answer 6

I am an individual. Case closed. Without individuality there is no "I", only we.
My individuality is that I am the sum off all the people that I have known, everything that I have done, everything that I have heard and been taught, and all memories that I have, and all that I will become. The sum total of my life is like no other. I am unique in my perspective. I may seem to have commonalities with many others, but seen as a whole I am unique.

Answer 7

Your friend's argument is sort of true, yes. Everybody has been influenced by somebody or something, be it family, friends, television, art, nature, and so on. But at the same time everyone is individual, you'd be very hard pressed to find 2 people that are EXACTLY alike. Even twins have their own personal preferences. So you're both right.

Answer 8

Now that I think about it I agree with your professor. Yes we all have different finger prints, and different thoughts, but everyone wants to be trendy, and have the "new style" whether it be clothes, hair, make up, cars, even houses. So there is no such thing as "individuality"!

Answer 9

while i understand what your professor means, b/c nothing will ever happen that hasnt already happened in some way.

you could simply say an individual is defined as an entity that is "a single organism as distinguished from a group "

so therfore he's wrong an "individual" is a person, and therfore every person posseses "individuality"/

it's kinda cutting hairs, but i've learned that the best logic isnt always the most perfect logic.

Answer 10

I don't understand why he doesn't want you to relate your argument to something or someone else. That's how to PROVE your argument in favor of individuality! For example, every single person born on this earth is different, genetically, from every other person.

Even though billions of humans came before us, and billions probably will come after us, there will NEVER be two people who share 100% of the same genetics. We are all true individuals! (I'm not taking cloning into account).