Even when alone, to what extent does the sense of identity exist independently of others? — Jack Cummins

Identity is pretty much tied to the development of an individual's cognition (perception and senses) beginning in the womb. Some humans would develop acute senses of concepts and their connections, some would develop high degree of accuracy in vision, hearing, and smell.

As we develop (as in growth), our sense of perception would greatly influence how much or how little we take in from our environment. The behavioral psychologist's theory on external influences -- good or bad -- have a root cause in the baby's development. So, strong conceptual intelligence would have strong influence on decisions. However, it is also true that an individual growing up surrounded closely by intelligent people would also have increased intelligence, and individuals with nothing but an acute sense of their surrounding could overcome the lack of intelligent support.

My point is, when you start with a good development of your perception, you have in you a strong support already, able to overcome the deficiency in social support (bad parents, bad friends). You could even continue in life, though maybe modestly, a very healthy lifestyle, continuing on to old age still sharp, strong, and healthy.

What I just said comes from study in psychology and from reading voraciously what makes people what they are. I observe people I interact with from different economic background and my conjecture almost always match what I observe.

Note: when I said beginning in the womb, obviously we cannot observe yet outwardly how an individual is until they show interaction and decision-making.

I have studied a fair amount of psychology and early object relations is extremely important, including the nature of sexual identity. The sense of core identity is established. It may be that is so important and all other relationships build from there.

It may be that ego stability is tied up with so much of human interaction, especially ideas of success and failure. It may be a complex process. Apart from the book I read, I went out a fair distance to Greenwich today and, strangely, met 2 ex personal tutors, one of whom I haven't seen for 16 years. It brought back memories of ups and downs on the courses and how those affected my sense of identity. It is such a complex web and probably affects ego fragility and solidity, in the development of an autobiographical sense of identity.

Of course, as the cognitive behaviourists remind us it is not others' opinions which affect us directly but how the beliefs about these affect our emotions. The outer aspects of behaviour and the ongoing developments in social identities are likely to be the result of such emotional memories.

As we are talking about "aloneness and significance of other minds" here, I'm going out on a limb and say this:

including the nature of sexual identity. — Jack Cummins

It may be a complex process. — Jack Cummins

emotional memories. — Jack Cummins

Human development is not as complex as it is "exclusive and privileged". Let's go ahead and criticize for example the believers in AI will be "humans" someday. They are talking in terms of complexity and the amount of data of what goes into AI manufacturing. Is it really what makes something human?

No! We'd like to think so. Because AI is created by humans after all -- humans who went through the womb and fetal development. But AI can't inherit the creators' identity. Because AI can't have that "beginning" as support. AI can't build upon the sense of perception. Everything is fed into the AI by humans as complete algorithm.

Next, sexual identity -- really? In fact, the acuteness of perception has nothing to do with sexual identity. Hunger, sexual needs, comfort could be satisfied and be silenced for the meantime. But not identity -- identity goes on. This is what I'm talking about going back to perception -- the basics. How acute could you observe. Heck, I am heterosexual to the bone and my identity has not been affected by those things.

I probably come from a different perspective from you because I do question the possibility of A1 becoming humans in the way that each of us is at the present time. That is because the A1s will probably not have the significant life experiences of lifeforms which are sentient if not born in the way in which each of us have been at the present time. Of course, it is hard to know how some form of sentient beings will come into existence and to what extent they will have reflective conscious identities or be like empty forms. This is where the question of consciousness comes into the picture and to what extent can it be simulated or created consciously?

As far as sexual identity, it may be not be about sexuality in relation to who one has sex with, but about the basic emotional aspects of sexual identity and gender identity. In this respect, beyond sexual relationships of who people sleep with there is the way people see their own and others' bodies. Freud argued that all human beings are bisexual potentially. This does not necessarily mean that people would go as far as to have gay sex. It is more about how one sees one's own body in relation to others, of both genders. Beyond the question of gay sex there is the nature of the homoerotic, but I am aware that some may see this as a dodgy psychological and philosophical area.

As far as sexual identity, it may be not be about sexuality in relation to who one has sex with, but about the basic emotional aspects of sexual identity and gender identity. In this respect, beyond sexual relationships of who people sleep with there is the way people see their own and others' bodies. — Jack Cummins

I think it would help this discussion if we, first, accept the fact the emotions are reactionary, not deliberatively. While reactionary reflex is after-the-fact, deliberative reflex is one that classical philosophy has almost always attributed to human cognition.

So, let's reduce our thought process some more by treating emotions and sexual identity, similar to hunger, comfort, and security as something transient, in flux, or the changing variable. Then, we can start seeing what identity is.

If you're still stuck with the usual suspects called sociology and behavioral psychology theories, then we can't talk philosophically here.

Even though I have studied various schools of psychology and sociology, I do agree that theories can get in the way at times. But, in discussion of needs, Maslow's hierarchy may be important because it starts from the physiological going upwards to the social and ones beyond this, especially self-actualization. Human life and the experience of identity may exist on all these levels.

As far as reactionary and the emotions, it may be about at what point does reflective consciousness come into the picture? In particular, it can be asked how different is the experience of sensations in animals and forms of sentience other than humans. As far as I see it, the critical factor may be language in how human beings construct social meanings and personal identity. What do you think is essential to the nature of human desires and emotional attachments. There is the role of language but there are also aspects of raw emotional processing and how much is subconscious or based on subliminal aspects of perception and social interaction?

Maslow's hierarchy is rather apposite to the examination of solipsismt/aloneness vis-à-vis other minds.

If anything, Maslow's hierarchy of needs may work on the philosophical assumptions that humans need other humans. This aspect of Maslow's thinking has probably not been given enough scrutiny in philosophy. To some extent, human beings as beings which develop are born at an early stage of development are dependent on human beings for survival. However, the emotional and psychological aspects are more questionable. So much of human life occurs in groups that the idea of the solitary life is not considered seriously.

I do know some people who feel that they get so little from social experience. They need others for their physiological needs but prefer their own company. Such emotional distance may be seen most clearly in individuals on the autistic spectrum. However, that is not to say that others don't experience difficulties in aspects of social life. The idea of the group may be habitual and the time of social distancing in the pandemic may have forced many from social dependency to isolation for the first time, for better or worse. Some may see such separation as a source of emotional distress or, alternatively, as a form of liberation from the voices of tha crowd. The question may be to what extent Maslow's realm of the social needs is essential or not?

We're social animals, so they say, and given that, aloneness is distressful. It looks like Maslow was right on the money, even though his hierarchy of needs has been somewhat discredited but only for those who want to split hairs. You might wanna reexamine Maslow's thesis.

Before I go on, I want to go back and clarify what I've been trying to argue in response to your statement

I am wondering about the way in which human identity is established, with potential soliptist or narcissistic aspects. How much are we influenced by others' minds and intersubjective meaning.

Even when alone, to what extent does the sense of identity exist independently of others? — Jack Cummins

When I say 'identity', I mean to say the mind-self identity. So, I'll just use the mind from here on so as to avoid confusion and stay consistent with what I've said previously already.

As far as reactionary and the emotions, it may be about at what point does reflective consciousness come into the picture? — Jack Cummins

As I said earlier, the mind continues on as it deliberates on anything. The mind takes responsibility for the errors, the confusion, and truth of its perception about the world (which includes the social interactions). We'll get to this later.

As far as I see it, the critical factor may be language in how human beings construct social meanings and personal identity. — Jack Cummins

Language is just one of the many methods the mind asserts its responsibility. When we write or speak, this is just the overspill of what the mind already has formulated. You are seeing it backwards.

And yes, thanks to Hume, Wittgenstein, Whitehead, and our parents, among the many influencers in our existence, we are accustomed to thinking that singular objects must come first before we could form some universal concepts of the world. How about this -- our mind wants to confirm that what we think about concepts is consistent with the reality our mind sees; so we go around checking the chair in the room. If it isn't consistent, the mind admits error or confusion. This is how our self asserts its autonomy. Think of the times you blame your limitation, lack of education, or ignorance when physical reality does not match the mind's conjecture? This is your identity asserting its accountability.

I am wondering about the way in which human identity is established, with potential soliptist or narcissistic aspects. How much are we influenced by others' minds and intersubjective meaning. Buber wrote in, 'I and Thou', how people see thou as God or in the communication with the other. — Jack Cummins

There is a similar discussion going on in another thread on the forum right now - "Corporeality and Interpersonal Being." They're talking more about the self than identity, but I think those are the same thing. Your take is more psychological while the other is more philosophical.

I experience my identity as a more or less stable foundation for my experience and understanding of the world. It's the unmoving, again more or less, platform on which I stand to look out at the world. I don't really feel it as having parts. My body is included as much as my mind, my perceptions, my feelings. All one thing. Where did it come from, I don't really know exactly, but I have no doubt that it comes from an interaction between inborn capacities, capabilities, and drives; and physical and social experiences.

I feel separate from other people, but I'm also drawn close to them by affection, interest, and compassion. I do feel a drive for intimacy and connection but I'm also comfortable alone. The prevalent negative feeling I have is a sometimes intense shame for my weakness and fear. Perhaps this is part of the reason I've learned to feel comfortable alone.

As far as social needs go it is likely that people may be able to cope alone if they have the security of some meaningful relationships, even if the people are not nearby. There are some people though who find it hard to be alone at all. This may be on account of the difficulty of being alone with the self.

Human identity in relation to both mind and body. People may have difficulty within and on account of their outer image, especially in a image-driven society. In both respects, some identities seem more fragile. The social aspects of existential aspects of identity exist alongside the issues of how one exists in a cosmic framework. It is likely that the various sides of this vary at different stages in life in important and in relation to what one values. Another aspect may be moral integrity because conscience and its social dimensions may be as important as status. This may be partly due to the social aspects of shame as well as a sense of how one understands relationships with others.

It does seem that there are several discussions going on about the self on the forum currently. I do see it as being philosophy but I do keep coming back to the psychological because I have studied psychodynamic psychotherapy.

I probably have a fairly stable identity but it does fluctuate. I tend to take failures to heart at times and I have had quite a few. One thing which I do find is that I am sensitive about others' views and do get upset when others try to tell me what to do. I do enjoy being with others but do need time by myself and don't know how people cope who are in a constant social whirlpool.

Being alone is stressful, as I said.

Being alone is stressful, as I said. — Agent Smith

Can you explain why, or how, the stress arises? In engineering, stress is produced when there are two or more forces working against each other. The left hand pushes against the bow as the right hand pulls back the bowstring.

So on the face of it, I would expect that stress would be produced when two people are wanting different things - Smith wants companionship, but Cummins wants to be alone, maybe. But you say that Smith alone is more stressed?

I'm wondering if other people function as a distraction rather than a relaxant, from a stress that is always there in the background?

I probably have a fairly stable identity but it does fluctuate. I tend to take failures to heart at times and I have had quite a few. One thing which I do find is that I am sensitive about others' views and do get upset when others try to tell me what to do. I do enjoy being with others but do need time by myself and don't know how people cope who are in a constant social whirlpool. — Jack Cummins

This is pretty similar to how I feel.

I am wondering about the way in which human identity is established, with potential soliptist or narcissistic aspects. How much are we influenced by others' minds and intersubjective meaning. Buber wrote in, 'I and Thou', how people see thou as God or in the communication with the other. — Jack Cummins

From the point of view of developmental psychology, the question is whether the experience of 'ego' is an activity that appears in the individual at birth or is the result of something like the 'mirror stage' as formulated by Lacan (given in separate paragraphs):

This jubilant assumption of his specular image by the child at the infant stage, still sunk in his motor incapacity and nursling dependence, would seem to exhibit in an exemplary situation the symbolic matrix in which the I is precipitated in a primordial form, before it is objectified in the dialectic of identification with the other, and before language restores it, in the universal, it functions as subject......

These reflections lead me to recognize in the spatial captation manifested in the mirror-stage, even before the social dialectic, the effect in man of organic insufficiency in the natural reality---in so far as any meaning can be given to the word 'nature'.
I am led, therefore, to regard the function of the mirror-stage as a particular case of the function of the imago, which is to establish a relation between the Innenvelt and the Umvelt.
In man, however, this relation to nature is altered by a certain dehiscence at the heart of the organism, a primordial Discord betrayed by the signs of uneasiness and motor unco-ordination of the neo-natal months. The objective notion of the anatomical incompleteness of the pyramidal system and likewise the presence of certain humoral residues of the maternal organism confirm the view I have formulated as the fact of a real specific prematurity of birth in man.......

This development is experienced as a temporal dialectic that decisively project the formation of the individual into history. The mirror stage is a drama whose internal thrust is precipitated from insufficiency to anticipation--And which manufactures for the subject, caught up in the lure of spatial identification, the succession of phantasies that extends from a fragmented body-image to a form of its totality that I shall call orthopaedic ---and lastly, to the assumption of the armour of an alienating identity, which will mark with its rigid structure the subject's entire mental development. Thus, to break out of the circle of the Innenvelt into the Umvelt generates the inexhaustible quadrature of the ego's verifications. — Lacan, Écrits

Lacan proceeds from this starting point to build his theory of psychoanalysis. The issue at hand, however, concerns a number of 'structuralist' views of development ranging from the scientific method of Vygotsky to the phenomenological one of Merleau-Ponty.

It is stressful being alone when one has no one to share thoughts with although there are times when social life can be stressful as well. I grew up as an only child and I did feel that was hard. It is also probably why I am better able to do things by myself as I was got used to it. Nevertheless, I have friends who have siblings who create such difficulties for them and my friends think that I am lucky to not have brothers or sisters. It may come down to whether the actual interaction and social life is of good quality or not. Even with relationships many seek them but end up wishing to get out of them if they are a source of suffering rather than happiness.

It is interesting to read the Lacan quote, especially as I have thought that I should read his writings but have not managed to do so yet. The mirror processes are probably important to ego development and it does seem that traumatic early experiences lead to so many potential problems later.

When I was single, I found it very stressful. I used to feel this anxiety of having nothing to do, so I kept compulsively busy, like I couldn't sit still. But then I'd get into a relationship and if I didn't like where it was going, it was worse, and I would feel this huge calm once I broke up, but then the anxiety would start up again as the lonliness prolonged and the cycle would repeat.

But then I found someone, and so am no longer alone and no longer anxious, although prolly not super chill either. In any event, lonliness does give you a chance to really learn about yourself. What I learned was that I was not designed to be alone. Some people are though, but I sometimes wonder if that's just because they never spent a long time attached, so they haven't created that dependence.

The mirror processes are probably important to ego development — Jack Cummins

I was apprehensive about bringing Lacan's work up because I don't think of "ego" as something that can be referred to as a normative fact. It plays a role in various models and is a different agent in those different contexts. It needs to be used like walking a tightrope stretched between specific locations that won't be helpful between others.

The term ego is ambiguous because it is used differently in psychoanalysis to in Eastern philosophy. In some ways, it does capture the nature of conscious identity but it probably should be used carefully, and, often in conventional conversation it conjures up the idea of an inflated sense of self worth. This may be connected with the emphasis on individualism and the triumph of a sense of personal power. Probably, the idea of fame would arise here as the extreme form of mastery of social attention beyond the realms of intimate human contact. Nevertheless, fame could be seen as the one of the extremes of 'the mirror' and narcissistic pride.

Apart from the issue of loneliness in relation to aloneness, the one factor which you mention is that of attachment. This varies with different friendships and relationships. It can also create demands from another and unreciprocated needs are often problematic and lead to broken hearts. It is very hard to avoid all attachments, and, as @Paine raised there is the role of ego. I also think it probably also relates to how much quality relationships one experiences in the first place..

It also makes me think of the nature of the autistic spectrum and how some fail to make emotional connections with others. I was once doing an art therapy placement with individuals on the autistic spectrum. While reading research, one important issue here was the way in which people who are are on this spectrum often have difficulties understanding other minds. This leads to problems with communication, empathy and difficulties relating to others. The problem is with the nature of emotional bonds.

@Jack Cummins

Can you explain why, or how, the stress arises? In engineering, stress is produced when there are two or more forces working against each other. The left hand pushes against the bow as the right hand pulls back the bowstring.

So on the face of it, I would expect that stress would be produced when two people are wanting different things - Smith wants companionship, but Cummins wants to be alone, maybe. But you say that Smith alone is more stressed?

I'm wondering if other people function as a distraction rather than a relaxant, from a stress that is always there in the background? — unenlightened

Humans are social creatures and there's an instinctive desire for company. I believe there are psychological studies that show those who live solitary lives have shorter lifespans and suffer more illnesses. As Jack Cummins alluded to, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is on target (social life is a sine qua non).

Humans are social creatures and there's an instinctive desire for company. I believe there are psychological studies that show those who live solitary lives have shorter lifespans and suffer more illnesses. As Jack Cummins alluded to, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is on target (social life is a sine qua non). — Agent Smith

Yes. But whence the stress? If you don't know, that's fine, or if you don't care. I stress the word 'stress' there to emphasise the tension between what you said for yourself, and what you say above for humanity.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is on target (social life is a sine qua non). — Agent Smith

It is a sine qua non for infants and children. However, there is a tradition in some tribes that the adolescent needs to go alone to the wilderness, or perhaps on a pilgrimage to 'find themselves' or to find their 'spirit animal', or their vocation, or God. Zarathustra goes up into the mountains, and then returns changed to give something to society instead of just taking from it.

That's there, true. I don't deny there are some coming-of-age rituals in many traditions that involve solitary trips into the unknown. However, the objective here seems to be to teach a lesson to wit that you won't last 5 minutes in the wild unless you have someone watching your six. Our ancestors were no fools, mon ami.

the objective here seems to be to teach a lesson to wit that you won't last 5 minutes in the wild unless you have someone watching your six. Our ancestors were no fools, mon ami. — Agent Smith

That was not my experience. What I learned from spending time alone is that my feeling experience comes from within; there are happy days and miserable days, calm days and agitated days, and this emotional weather, if I may put it that way, is nothing to do with other people or the environment. This gives one a different perspective on all the social relationships one has, and one's relationship to the vicissitudes of life. One understands better what one brings to a relationship or a situation, and how one is responsible for one's response to it. In this way, time alone teaches one how to be socially responsible, which means knowing when to cooperate, and when to stand alone and in opposition. This latter is terribly important if one is going to be something more than a sheep in one's social relations.

I learned — unenlightened

Superb! I really am happy for you mon ami. Few people can say that, loneliness killing them off. Have you tried looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint? Who said united we stand, divided we fall? What about Ben Franklin who uttered "we must hang together or assuredly we will all hang separately "

From Ben you can leap to Soren borrowing from William:

"Better well hung than ill wed."