The Problem of Self-Reference
The most familiar document of identity is one's passport used for travel. Undoubtedly, the passport itself would not have existed without an "authority of origin", which had generated that document of identity in the first place.
This simple example points to the fact that: specifying identity of a person can be accomplished only in relation to a reference of origin (to whom that person belongs).
Another example, which clarifies the link between a person's
uniqueness on one hand, and the general group to which the person
belongs - is the DNA pattern.
A specific DNA strand identifies a specific individual, but in the same
time, the DNA - used for personal identity - contains patterns of
information about the group of humanity - from whom that
particular individual is inseparable.
In order to make a distinction of an object (A), the object must be consistent with itself and different from other objects - but this means that other objects are also needed for identifying (A). However, despite the necessity of relating to a reference - it is surprising that the Law of Identity referred to by the expression (A = A ) - is based on self-reference, failing to relate to the group of origin to which (A) belongs.
Western philosophical view:
The Law of Identity (A = A) is also sensed at the background of Leibnitz' “Principle of Individuation”:
“Every singular substance does not need as individuating principle anything more than its entity” (1)
Leibnitz' Principle of Individuation focuses on the uniqueness of a certain singular substance or individual. However, to be distinguished, one must belong to a group of individuals among whom one is distinguished. A person can be unique among other people (but not among trees or fish), which means that referencing an individual entity to its group - is important.
Obviously, the focus of Western view in general is more inclined towards individuality and separation of identifies entities. But this generates the question: who comes first, the individual or society?
Eastern Philosophical view:
From the perspective of Eastern philosophical concepts, the starting point in observation about an object is not how different it is from other objects - but (first of all) where does it belong to, with other objects, in fact: how similar it is to other objects. Eastern philosophical perspectives are based on the principle of Interconnectedness of beings. Nothing exists on its own. Interrelatedness of objects is derived from a general observation, a principle called 'Dependent Origination':
“[Dependent Origination] teaches that no beings or phenomena exist on their own;
they exist or occur because of their relationship with other beings and phenomena.
Everything in the world comes into existence in response to causes and conditions.
That is, nothing can exist independent of other things or arise in isolation”. (2)
A similar observation is shared with the gist of the African concept of Ubuntu, defining the self as " I exist because of others", who in turn exist because of others, and so on.
For an individual, together with developing awareness about the world, there is a fundamental need for identifying oneself through:
- accepting a reference for one's existence, and
- understanding of the potential for change, yet maintaining one's uniqueness over the passage of time.
The problem of Self-reference and the Conventional Law of Identity:
Self-reference is evident in the expression of the Law of Identity (A = A): a tautology in logical terms. Tautology (for example 1 = 1) carries 'zero information'. Some philosophers view the validity of the Law of Identity A = A as restricted to the field of abstraction (and as incapable of identifying objects in the physical domain):
“In mathematical logic the expression "A = A" has a well-defined meaning,
which no one disputes, but the expression loses its meaning outside of mathematical logic”. (3)
Other sources declare open war of criticism against the expression of A = A,
sarcastically rejecting it as nonsensical. (4)
Identity and the Potential for Change
A major difficulty in analysing the concept of identity is the change experienced by the individual over time passing. A simple and direct way of looking at "Identity over time" - can be accomplished through the perspective of Potentiality.
A complete description of object (A) should account for the Potential for Change in time - as a necessary component of identity. What drives (A) to develop from a current actual state to a future one, is its capacity to change, or simply its inner potential (p).
The phenomenon of change and future potentials – did not find a welcoming place in the description of Identity of objects. In his book Θ, Aristotle used the word "dumanis" to refer to the potential of object to change in time. However, potentiality implies various scenarios of the future state of observed object, and is therefore undefinable in concrete perspective:
“A dunamis in this sense is not a thing's power to produce a change but rather its capacity
to be in a different and more completed state. Aristotle thinks that potentiality so understood
is indefinable, claiming that the general idea can be grasped from a consideration of cases.
Actuality is to potentiality, Aristotle tells us, as “someone waking is to someone sleeping,
as someone seeing is to a sighted person with his eyes close.” (5)
One can argue, however, that the actual state of object (A) - at this present time - was itself a mere potential state (or a possibility) in the past - because (A) continually undergoes changes. To take Aristotle's example; the actual state of a person waking has a potential to develop into the same person sleeping - at a later time. This possibility (to be in a sleeping state) exists within the waking state as a future possibility, and there is no conflict or dichotomy between actuality and potentiality - as both belong to the same identity.
The concept of potentials (or latent states) in Eastern philosophies emerged through the search for a solution to the problem of sufferings. One's actual state can be that of hardships, but the same actual state of hardships contains within itself a potential (or a latent state) of change - allowing for transformation of one state into another. The concept of 'potentiality contained within the actual state' applies also to any physical phenomenon or natural occurrence under observation:
“An understanding of [latency], therefore, helps us to see that, despite how we may see them,
things--people, situations, relationships, our own lives--are not fixed, but dynamic,
constantly changing and evolving. They are filled with latent potential which can become manifest
at any time”. (6)
Without introducing the factor of "inner potentials" to identify an observed object, we are likely to fall into confusion.
The following passage (from an article published by "Hume Society") reflects the difficulty and limitations in explaning how uniqueness or identity is maintained over changing phases of time:
“What is identity?.... Hume thinks that our idea of identity involves confusion,
first of all because it is based on vacillating between viewing (A) as two things
and viewing it as one, and more fundamentally because it mistakenly applies
passage of time, or duration, to the unchanging (A)”. (7)
Conclusion: The Law of Identity ( A = A ) is based on self-reference. It also expresses a static view of the object in concern, which contradicts the reality of change in time. In reality, object (A) is a function of time: A = A(t), and its ability or potential for change is intrinsic within its identity. Despite changes, object (A) maintains its uniqueness, distinguished among other objects belonging to the same class or origin.
A general and complete expression of the Law of Identity of objects or individuals - should encompass the three factors of: uniqueness, potentials and a reference of origin, to give a complete description of identity.
Image courtesy of www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014