Who Really Am I

Who am I? This question has kept our minds tormented for years. But before answering
this can we ask ourselves, is an eye visible to an eye? Is an ear audible to itself? Similarly, an “I”
is unaware of itself.

The social context somehow contributes to the awareness of the self. One theory is that
the self is not discovered, it is made through socialization processes. We are but victims of
socialization; we are active and strategizing agents fighting for the definition of “ourselves”.
Thus, social situations define our self-concept and self-esteem. Take for instance these so-called
extroverts, introverts, and ambiverts. They are those people who gain energy by being around
people, people who are not very confident about themselves, and generally those who have a
balanced personality, respectively.

However, self in postmodernity is complicated by electronically mediated virtual

interaction of cyber self. The modernity of this world and of the society leaves a negative note on
the concept of self. It threatens the very authenticity of the self, leads to alienation (where human
beings haunted by the very images they have created), the body is objectified, and the self is
dehumanized. Like when it comes to cyber relationships. When we are communicating with
someone through a screen, we miss non-verbal language. The way a person looks at you, talks
and laughs, and their overall presence is quite important. Also, it makes it very easy for them to
portray a false identity or hide their defects.

Self in postmodernity is complicated by diverse cultures. The difference between the

construals of the self, of other people, and the interdependence of the two is quite apparent. Take
for instance, many Asian cultures have these conceptions of individuality that is emphasized on
attending to other, fitting in, and harmonious interdependence with them. Western culture, on the
other hand, neither assumes or values such concept thus individuals seek to maintain
independence from others by attending to the self and by discovering and expressing their unique
attributes.

Self in postmodernity is complicated by the current societies. Take for instance, most
people in the LGBTQ+ community dwell on the fact that what they are already predetermined at
birth. Some, on the other hand, realized some aspects of themselves at age 20 or even at their
mid-40s. Being part of the community isn’t just based on the person but on the social aspects and
experiences he/she has/had (or even just by the TV series or movies they’ve watched that
subsequently triggered their sexuality).

There is also this so-called material self that encompasses a person’s relation to his/her
closest possessions and relatives. Now, this affects the model of the self-concept and self-esteem
because we no longer look at our internal ideal selves but we look towards an externally
constructed material existence thus arriving to the notion: The less we have, the less we are.
Being labeled based on what we wear or what car we own is a prevalent phenomenon in the
society today. Rich people are stereotyped as arrogant whilst poor people are the industrious
types, and so forth.

Lastly, Friedrich Nietzsche suggests that the so-called self is the overall action, thoughts
and feelings of an individual; that it is nothing more than a metaphor, a representation of
something abstract. The so-called self is just a symbol. Labelling or enframing the self to one
representation leads not to the real understanding of it but to its limitations. Yes, confining the
self can help us understand more clearly. Then when we get used to that “self” that we neglect
the fact that in this world, change is constant. Thus, the self is endlessly creating itself; the
human self exists on a continuum.

My paper is all about an alternative perspective. It is one that looks beyond labels or
representations or symbols to see the bigger picture of the human self. When we get caught up in
terminology and designate names to certain facets of the self, we limit our ability to understand it
on its own terms. Erroneously trying to fit the complexity of the human self into an unreasonably
tiny box.

Elite philosophers have already paved the way for us to “know” or “understand” the self.
Aristotle and Plato’s notion that the soul is the core essence of a living being to Socrates’
famously maintained theory that our true self is our soul; Rene Descartes’ dualism and belief that
the mind is the seat of our consciousness because it houses our sense of self; John Locke’s theory
that we are the same person and ourselves depend not substance but on consciousness; David
Hume’s suggestion that the self is just a bundle of perceptions; the established theories of the
ego, superego, and Id of Sigmund Freud that pertains to the conscious and the unconscious
selves.

Philosophers create theories in order to understand the self but the self implies and
requires nothing--so understanding it means understanding none. Understanding anything
absolutely means only to believe in a single origin to the point of willful blindness. My theory is
that there is no absolute self, that making theories are like labels and that, ironically, the self
can’t be bound by theories. The self can never be described by words. It is so much more than
that.

It may be easy to write about a person you just met for a few days, but why is it so hard
to write about yourself? This had me wondering if I really know myself. For me, the hardest
statement to answer is: describe yourself. Maybe because there are torrents of possible answers.
Maybe because describing oneself isn’t just all about the “I”. Maybe because we are unaware of
our own selves. Maybe because we are all changing constantly. Maybe because there is no
definite or absolute answer. Maybe because the self exists at the same time it doesn’t. Or maybe
because the self doesn’t just exist in words.