The issue of Identity and its topicality
24
Mar
The question is so fundamental that it runs through philosophy since Parmênides, where “the same, because it is both to learn (to think) and also to be” (apud Heidegger) and for him to think and be are thought as the same, that is, identity is part of being, but this has a lot to do with the current moment.
When appealing to questions of identity we separate ourselves from people of different races, creeds or genders, we are trying to strengthen what is a false concept of identity because it both denies Being itself, and attempts to strengthen a certain group under an alleged identity and deny those that have little to do with belonging to that group or race.
This look at “different things” and recognizing some co-pertinence in them (belonging is just another way of giving identity to an isolated group or race), we must manifest differently what should be pointed out as sameness, that is, co-permanence groups with a diverse culture.
The logical sense of thinking about this identity is strong and has a presence in different cultures, both because the groups want to be strengthened through this “identity”, as well as following a binary and dualistic logic where A cannot be B, or they are the same and are the same, or they are different and contradictory, we have already pointed out in other texts the third included by Nicolescu Barsarab, in logic.
But in onto-logic Being is and can be non-Being, where there is a third term T that is both A and non-A, which even in physical reality has already been proven by quantum physics, the problem for dualistic philosophy is that this involves complexity.
There is a second way of seeing the question within the thinking (noein) where it is presented as Being, as was said at the beginning, in it two supposedly different things, they see each other as co-pertinence, which made some possible problematic interpretations in modernity.
Heidegger points to it, first quoting Parmenides and then developing “something absolutely different from what we ordinarily know as the doctrine of metaphysics, in which identity is part of being” (HEIDEGGER, 1973).
What Heidegger does is invert Hegel’s phrase: “identity is part of Being”, for “(…) the unity of identity is a fundamental feature of the being of the being. Everywhere, wherever we have a relationship with any type of being, we are challenged by identity.” (HEIDEGGER, 1973).
What Heidegger does is invert Hegel’s phrase: “identity is part of Being”, for “(…) the unity of identity is a fundamental feature of the being of the being. Everywhere, wherever we have a relationship with any type of being, we are challenged by identity.”(HEIDEGGER, 1973).
Going to the bottom of modern philosophy, where Hegel is a worthy representative, it can be said that there is a shift from Being (sein) to Being-there (Dasein) and perhaps the complexity will find there a point of support for those who want simplistic explanations. , it can be said that there is no displacement
However, it is more complex, as it involves existential aspects such as “worldliness”, “facticity” and “language”, without them we fall into simplistic explanations that only strengthen identity as a factor of difference and exclusion from the Other.
Heidegger, M. (1973) The principle of identity. In.Thinkers Brazilian Collection. Abril ed. Brazil, Rio de Janeiro.
