So you have misunderstood me, Ierrellus. It seems that you do not know what the genetic recombination means.
We all have parents - father and mother -, and their genetic codes influence our genetic codes, but that does not mean that they are the same. And if something is not the same, then it is different, regardless how much, it is different. Our genetic codes are different from the genetic codes of our parents because of the genetic recombination.
We are kin to our parents, and even more to our siblings, but we are not them.
Genetics is not ideology, but your brain is full of ideology or at least full of misunderstandings and misinterpretations and certainly because of your ideology.
I did not say that the “I” was free from outside control and not a subject to another’s authority and/or doesn’t depend on another for livelihood or sustenance. That is merely your false interpretation of something that I never said. I am saying that we have to distinguish genetics/biology from sociology/psychology and almost all other realms. Those who do not do this are almost always ideologs.
If you and the other ideologs were right, then there would be no “I”, no evolution of life, thus also no history. “I” and “we” are never the same. Only communists and other leftish ideologs are preaching such a nonsense.
It is not only linguistically but also genetically/biologically right to differentiate between “I” and “we”.
Apparently I have misunderstood you. I know what recombinant DNA involves; but, I’m a carbon copy of my mother. Some of this is due to environment, which does not rule out the possibility of inherited patterns of behavior. I inherited her depression as well as her ability to create poetry and art. Environment alone does not explain our similarity.
You have misunderstood me or you do not know what an “I”, an individual person, is.
I am not. I am I. You are also an I, unless you are not a living being. A living being is one living being. A = one. The child in a womb, regardless whether this child is a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus, is an “I”, a living being, one living being. This child and the mother are two different organisms, two different living systems, two different living beings. If, for example, the blood of the mother comes in direct contact with the blood of the child in her womb, then there is a very high probability that the child or the mother or both will die because of that fact. How we know this? We know this because of medicine/biology/genetics.
If we want to talk about environmental influences, then we have to leave the “I”, because we have to know what the environment is and does and how it influences the “I”. Then we can also use all the other prepositions. And then we can also talk about ecology, economy, sociology, psychology … and so on.
It is no linguistical accident that we have the prepoition “I” and call it the “first person”. That there is something in our body that says “I” is also no accident. So it would not be a mistake to philosophically talk about an “I” too, and the history of philosophy has clearly shown that the “I” is not only a matter of linguistics and biology/genetics/medicine but also of philosophy. It is just logical.
Nobody can deny this.
Here you are talking about heredity (inheritance), Ierrellus, and it is right: all living beings inherit. So it is also right that environment alone does not explain our similarity. But note that I did not deny this, and I would never deny this. But what you and some others are saying or at least implicitly saying is that there is no “I” , and that is not true.
The following quote is a post as a reply to the opening post of this thread:
Martin Luther appealed to the “I”. The belief or faith should be a thing of the “I” and no longer of the “we”, namely the church that exploited its believers, for example by indulgence, thus payments!
I’m aware that Martin Luther challenged the we of church dogma in favor of the I of individual salvation. All I’m saying is that the we and the I are equally important. However, in our generation, I’d say the I takes precedence over the we.
Adolf Hitler did appealled to the “we” and not to the “I”, whereas - almost half a millennium before him - Martin Luther appealed to the “I” and not to the “we”, The Nazi party ( (NSDAP) was a reaction to and based on a modern political system, wherea the Protestant reformation was a reaction to and based on an ancient religious system (Roman Catholic Church).
In a family of 2 adults and 2 children, Adult A needs to consider themselves as equally as important as the combination of Adult A, Adult B and 2 Children (that is A = A + B + 2C),
I wouldn’t include survival as part of morality as it means any act of individual-sacrifice is an act of individual-immorality (unless the we is greater than the I).
What I meant is that in an early human group an “I” could not behave individually in a modern sense, thus like a modern “I”, because every “I” had to be like the “we”, every son had to be like his father and former ancestors, every daughter had to be like her mother and former ancestors. If someone tried to not follow this main rule of that early human culture, then this one would be killed. Someone who broke this rule was punished to death. There was no way out of the group.
The problem would seem to be how to incorporate enlightened "I’s into a "We’’ that is not a mob. The current political situation in the US is conservative “We” vs liberal “we”. But conservatives do not conserve and liberals do not liberate. The “I” is courted by both groups as if individual meaning had to do with joining the group.