I constantly have to define myself for others. The problem is that the definitions always belong to those who define, not to those who are defined.
2007-12-06 14:01:01 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Interesting, we define ourselves by what others transmit to us. We emit behaviors that reward us, and these behaviors elicit certain behaviors from other people. If we want people to feel sorry for us, we emit "feel sorry" behaviors and people feel sorry for us, and on and on. It is deep because it is who we are, yet we control our lives. We can't say it was your fault, because really deep down, we control ourselves, YET, we are social creatures and DO need other humans. So it is circular. What goes around comes around, sorta, huh?
2007-12-06 14:19:50 · answer #1 · answered by I 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, if you are defining yourself for the others, then you are both the one defining and the one defined - so to say the definition in this case belongs to one and not the other is not only not circular, but it is in fact logically incoherent.
If you mean that others constantly define you, or that you must constantly allow yourself to be defined for others, then it becomes circular because it boils down to your saying a person's definition belongs to that person. That doesn't make it not deep, in and of itself.
2007-12-07 05:17:50 · answer #2 · answered by Jeff R 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very, Circular Arguement! For Definitions Pose A Circular Philosophical Dilemma That Inhibits The Defining Moment Of Realization Of Self To Halt, And That In And Of Itself Is A Greater Mystery Of Who We Really Are.
2007-12-06 14:12:30 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
... well it not circular nonsense? I don't think its deep either, its just a statement about those who have power and those who don't. Are you trying to seek appraisement from people for being deep or smart or something?
Your statement has a problem, your quote doesn't match the statement. The statement you make about those who define and those who are defined has to apply to a broader group. You defining yourself is not a problem and does not fit that paradox. The corporations defining who is a potential buyer does.
2007-12-06 14:08:36 · answer #4 · answered by Aragon 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You come close to saying "in the eyes of the beholder", an axiom that means only the definition of someone else is made by others not yourself, to define your makeup is to put forth a personal opinion and may not be what others see about you.
Spartawo...
2007-12-06 14:14:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's circular deepness.
2007-12-06 17:22:58 · answer #6 · answered by Lorenzo Steed 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That makes perfect sence. I might use that for theme in a english paper!! THAT's AMAZING!
2007-12-06 14:15:31 · answer #7 · answered by Coribori 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a little bit of both, like all philosophy
2007-12-06 14:16:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you made that up yourself, I applaud you, good quote.
2007-12-06 14:07:47 · answer #9 · answered by Thinker 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it is better to judge than to be judged. similar concept.
2007-12-06 14:45:34 · answer #10 · answered by Wait a Minute 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋