You can only define you through the relationship with other beings,or what is you made of.
Can you give a definition of what is you yourself?
Your body is a sum up of thousands of your ancestors.and as a result of your procreation, you yourself will be divided into thousands of your progenies.
I believe the concept of I myself is just an illusion.because of that ,it’s no wonder why I can never understand the limitlessness of time and space.
Who just said that?
…with arms made of smoke…
I hope some true philosophers here would like to give a definition of what
is the concept of I myself excactly.
“Only the shallow know themselves”
Oscar Wilde
Do you think that’s true?
“I yam what I yam and that’s all that I yam” -Popeye
now go eat your spinach
-Imp
Mere semantics, my dear Watson.
I consider this a bogus question - a question with no meaning.
“What am I?”
Common nouns define classes. Proper nouns describe individuals. But any definition of an individual has got to begin with the class, because every proper noun is an instance of a common, or class noun. So, if I am treating myself as a proper noun, I will start the same way I would define “tiger”. And then define myself, as a proper noun, from that - what seperates me from others.
But in defining or describing “tiger”, or “Simba, this tiger”, I never attempt to describe every action it performs, or every reason it might have to peform an action. Somehow, when it comes to defining ourselves, we wish to be much more comprehensive. But that is not a definition. It’s just narcissism.
There is no one concept of “I”, for “I” is always teated as a proper noun. No one concept works for proper nouns. “I” am just an instance of a class noun. A particular. I can differentiate between “I” and other members of my class - and I belong to many classes in common parlance. But once I separate - once I sufficietly do this, the job of defining myself is done. This is always done in a compound way - first the class, then that which differentiates the “I” enough to enable us to treat it as a proper noun.
Secret hint - defining oneself, if taken past this point, is a purely religious activity. Foe guidelines, seek God.
faust,
I know what you like in philosophy.you prefer playing with words rather than philosophizing.
the function of words is just to transmit ideas and thoughts,it’s unnecessary to be so strict with words. 
Ah, I see. I am not one of those true philosopher types. I guess I don’t know “what you is made of”. I may play with words, but at least I know the rules of the game.
That old record never stops, does it eh Fausty? 
I remember reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Bladerunner), and that made me ask this question because the main character was a bounty hunter who killed escapee androids legally, yet people owned android pets and cared about them more than they cared about high level androids being taken out by bounty hunters. And there were many diologues dealing with the androids’ perception of “I.”
Well, surely, Obw, I cannot hope to add as much to any discussion as do you. This being a case in point.
In a way you’re right, Pang. All our thoughts have been had before by some other people scattered throughout history, our instincts have been handed to us by evolution, our emotions are shared by pretty much everyone and our collective subconcious (no Jung hating comments please,) has a hand in damn near everything…
But that’s only one way of thinking of it.
Alternately, the very fact that we think in terms of “I” must at least give evidence to its exsistence. “I” is a subjective term, (maybe THE subjective term…) therefore the fact that it is considered subjectivly gives it creedence, if at least only to the one thinking it, though in truth that’s the only one to whom it really matters. Though it’s true that what we receive has been used before throughout the ages by our ancestors, they are still ours. Why? Because we use them. They’ve been used before and will be used again over and over and over, but for us, they’re ours.
I’m reminded of Joseph Campbell; the themes are the same, but the story is ours to create.
TheQuestion,
Thanks for your lucid explanation.
According to idealist, everything that exists is either a mind or depends for its existence upon a mind. matter does not exist, ordinary physical objects are composed solely of ideas, which are inherently mental.
the most true existence is my mind,this is the base of the consept of I myself.
Although it is said that idealism is not easy to be disconfirmed by logical reasoning,i still don’t believe it could be right to deny that the world exists independently outside my mind.
If idearlism is absolutly wrong,and the only true reality is the world existed outside my mind,then should the concept of I myself at least be considered suspectable?
pang -so this is why you reject my analysis out of hand? If the phenomenal world exists, then we must suspect that we do not?
Have fun.
“You are made of entirely non-you elements.” - Thich Nhat Hanh.
That’s a huge “if” there Pang. Must it completely be one or the other? Idea or object? It’s pretty much argreed upon by everyone that there’s an objective reality, (an kind of communication would be impossible without one,) but I ask you this, could you define an object without using terms descriptive of the senses? In a way, an object can only exsist as an image in the mind, at least to us. Our perception is the whole of our experience, not the object itself we’re experiencing.
For the record I was actually supporting your side on that one.
Not that I care, of course. 
Oops.
Oooh, burned.