亚色影库app

An open access publication of the 亚色影库app & Sciences
Fall 2006

Identity & identities

Author
Sydney Sharpless Shoemaker

Sydney Shoemaker, a Fellow of the American Academy since 1996, is Susan Linn Sage Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Cornell University. His publications include 鈥淪elf-Knowledge and Self-Identity鈥 (1963), 鈥淧ersonal Identity鈥 (with Richard Swinburne, 1984), 鈥淚dentity, Cause, and Mind: Philosophical Essays鈥 (1984), and 鈥淭he First-Person Perspective and Other Essays鈥 (1996).

In its primary meaning, the noun 鈥榠dentity鈥 refers to the relation each thing has to itself and to no other thing. In the language of the logicians, this relation is transitive (if A is identical to B and B is identical to C, then A is identical C), symmetrical (if A is identical to B, B is identical to A), and reflexive (everything is identical to itself ). In addition, it is governed by Leibniz鈥檚 Law, the principle that says that if A is identical to B, whatever is true of A is true of B. In ordinary speech, the relation is expressed by the terms 鈥榠dentical鈥 and 鈥榮ame.鈥 But in addition to being used to express 鈥榥umerical鈥 identity, the relation that here concerns us, these terms are also used to express 鈥榪ualitative鈥 identity, i.e., exact similarity. The phrase, 鈥榦ne and the same,鈥 on the other hand, always expresses numerical identity. When philosophers talk about identity, they are usually referring to identity in this sense.

Nonphilosophers, when offered a discussion of identity, are often puzzled and disappointed to find that it is identity in this 鈥榣ogical鈥 sense that is under consideration. They wonder how identity as the relation everything has to itself and to no other thing can be of any interest, and how, if at all, it is related to what they regard as clearly of interest, namely, the notion that figures in such expressions as 鈥榪uest for identity,鈥 鈥榠dentity crisis,鈥 鈥榣oss of identity,鈥 and (most recently) 鈥榠dentity theft.鈥

But the 鈥榣ogical鈥 conception of identity鈥搉umerical identity鈥搃s far from foreign to ordinary folk; on the contrary, it is pervasive in everyday discourse. It is one of the notions expressed by the word 鈥榠s鈥: it is in play whenever anyone judges that a car in the parking lot is hers, or that someone she now sees is the person she was introduced to yesterday. The adjectives 鈥榮ame鈥 and 鈥榠dentical鈥 are regularly used to communicate this concept. What is foreign to many is the use of the noun 鈥榠dentity鈥 to express it. The noun has been appropriated to articulate a different, though undoubtedly related, notion.

.  .  .

To read this essay or subscribe to 顿忙诲补濒耻蝉, visit the 顿忙诲补濒耻蝉 access page
Access now