Comment by margalabargala
4 days ago
What you're saying is contradictory.
On one hand, you say that "you are your experiences therefore you're youness is absolute even if you're living out the instructions of a blogger"
And then on the next hand you seem to imply that being less similar to others makes you more you, which besides being without basis, contradicts the banal "you're you therefore you're you" of your first point.
You can't have it both ways.
I never actually said those things, you're paraphrasing what I said in a specific way so you can dunk on me. This isn't X bruv.
> > why does a broader, less likely mix of talents and experiences make you more "you"?
> Because it's highly improbable that any one person's natural mix of talents and experiences would be narrow and similar to everyone else's.
For those of us having trouble, can you elaborate on how that isn't described by "you seem to imply that being less similar to others makes you more you"?
Your answer there is directly at odds with saying that allowing yourself to be influenced by a blogger spewing mass-market pop-philosophy doesn't make the result less authentic.
The two original questions I answered are intrinsically linked. If your answers to the two are contradictory, then there's a fundamental integrity problem with the aforementioned pop-philosophy.
I don't see the connection. We are, at least in part (and some argue fully) a result of our past experiences, teachings, etc. I don't see how it's valid to argue that learning from an essay is somehow inauthentic.
This is different from the claim that people naturally have a unique set of traits, experiences, and desires, and you would expect people who have successfully self-actualised to express that uniqueness.