/lit/ - Literature

I find mapping authentic personality with respect to a private/public axis somewhat problematic. You are still "you" whether you're playing chameleon out in the world or spending time alone with your own thoughts.There is no deeper truth of self to get to, only less mediated spaces of expression.

>inb4 Jungian masks

Well, is a "person" made of his thoughts or actions?

kinda but not really
sometimes you just need to change the way you act depending on the type of people you're around. or maybe you don't. it reflects on your character a bit but not to the extent that it determines your whole personality

some people couldn't make it through one day without faking every aspect of their lives, ie slutty american white girls

Lacan addresses this.

You are never really alone.

The Other, not to be confused with "other" or "others", is a symbol for the other, a symbol from which we derive the guidelines in which we live. It's not only others in society, but also the eye of a God or a father who is not even present anymore. When you are alone, the Other is still there and perhaps in an even more evident way. That is so because you still act as if you were being watched. And in a way, you are, by yourself, who wants to be as the Other. That's why a puritan person will feel guilty for masturbating even if completely alone. We derive a lot of anxiety from this sort of thing. We not only function in society by tailoring our behaviour to fit specific groups, we also take with us ideas of what it means to be normal, or happy and so on and we live by that.

Your personality is an image as well, something you build. On some level you can say that it is always completely honest, but it shows itself through actions, not the way you see your personality. When you say "I am like this", you are projecting something onto it, you may be trying to prove (to yourself, to others) that you are like that. Sometimes it just shows what you wanted to be like.

When you "fake" your personality, it works in your head as "I'm acting like this and talking like this, but in reality I know I am not this" which is also an image of what you think you are like. In a way, we are always faking, acting "as if".

>>4637312 here

I want to stress that, it's true that "your image is purely defined by the way other people perceive you", but that it is not you, it is your image. That's image by definition, roughly. But you also grow a image of what people perceive of yourself and it is from there that evolves a personality. That is, what you think they think of you. It's not really what they think of you, it's just an image you projected as well.

>>4637312

This is in line with most contemporary sociolinguists' conception of identity too

>>4637312
Seems like an interesting theme to combine with modern surveillance, internet, social media, smartphones, general lack of privacy etc, since the sense of an other observing is becoming more and more concretely justifiable.

I don't see how either set of behavior is inherently "dishonest" to begin with, unless you're constantly telling lies. Authenticity is a myth.

>>4637379
Indeed.

But it is still a justification. What we get from the other is evidence that we are real. You talk and someone responds to it, we need that visible effect that our actions mean something, a certification, a tap in the back, a "like". Even if it is a negative reaction, controversy or fights.

One could say that we live in more free times to live and express ourselves than, say, medieval times or Victorian England. But in a way, despite all the appearances, people had a private life to live their wants. What I think it is more interesting is that, as a reaction to the loss of privacy we also grow used to live by the images of others. So you see pictures of everyone's private life on facebook, what they had for lunch and what not. And you believe that's an honest insight on how they live, you get the sense that this is what they do when they are alone and this perfects the illusion of what you should be like when you are alone. Not accounting for the fact that this is all fabricated. "The grass is greener on the other side" effect, everyone looks happy on the outside. But now we think we are seeing things from the inside, when it's actually just an image of it that people want to show.

I would say that more than "people observe me, so I should be careful with what I do", it is "I can observe them, so this is what I should be like" that is more empowering of our anxieties.

>>4637322
which contemporary sociolinguists?
you've piqued my interest

identity doesn't exist, only relations

>>4637281
>>4637281

>If your image is purely defined by the way other people perceive you

Why would it be?

emotional lying is a necessity for almost all people

i do believe in inner identity though. the way people actually feel and let themselves act when alone or uninhibited. that isnt the `real` you, just part of you

>>4638133
this

>>4637281
>people believing in "your image" or "personality"
>western garbage
But I haven't got a personality. We are never in the same stream. We are and we are not. The only permanent thing is change.

>>4638133

>rigid designators

>>4638133

That may 'sound cool', but what you have just said is illogical and results in a vicious regress.

For example, to have a true idea of something is to have an idea of that thing which is unambiguous. All false ideas are the result of ambiguity. For a thing to be unambiguous it must possess an account or 'essence'. If you deny essences you can't have relations or causality and you sink into Humean skepticism. However appealing Humean skepticism may be to academics, it is false in practice.

Anti-essentialism is just edgy.

>>4637281
Your personality is how your brain responds to stimuli, either through learned responses (memories, memories of thoughts) or inherently known responses (instincts, etc.). If your response to social circles to "fake" things, then your personality is: when in social circles you 'fake' things because _insert reason why you're doing it here_

Your real personality in that scenario would be one that fakes its personality when in social circles. Your personality would consist of being a faker, attributed to whatever reason makes you feel you need to fake.

>>4639049

Sure, and a word is a collection of physical marks, my mind is a mathematical argument, a novel is a collection of paper and ink, a man is a featherless biped, etc.

>>4639072
All of those things are true, what are you getting at? And what do you think a personality is if not that?

A person is a collection of evolving states. There no "I" except outside time.

muh forms

>>4637281
>neat division between real and fake

spooky

>>4639074

I'm sorry, I can't answer you. The intention behind your string of mere physical marks is non-existent.

>>4639074
You're just playing an irrelevant game of semantics like every other 15 year old reductionist.

>>4639094
>>4639096

I understand what you're saying I agree having re-read it. But do you believe it's wrong (just out of pure curiosity)?

>>4639106
As old Aristotle would say, 'In a sense it is right, but in another it's wrong.'

I would call a personality the immaterial identity of a person (not, for example, hair color, eye color, etc.). Even brain states need mental correlates to be understood. Strictly speaking, neuroscience is not nearly as magical as it may seem and some abstract data regarding brain states is not entirely helpful. Now, this immaterial concept of 'personality' is general/universal so there isn't much to say about it per se.

I'm not the other poster, by the way. Taking my intentional stance regarding personality, I would tell OP that dishonesty is indeed a part of his personality. Although his post is a little too existential for me. A person who intentionally lies is simply dishonest.