Welcome to Gaia! ::

There are certainly many methods one can define who they are in relation to others.

One can commit an act of violence, then once on the stand for having committed the crime, etc., you can become a matyr for your cause by stating why you sacrificed your freedom, your desires, etc. to commit a hideous act therein reinforcing the importance of your message. Whether others understand it is another issue.

One can revolutionize the way we think through the advertisement of their own thoughts, making for others an image of brilliance. In other words, were you to change, say a fundamental value through an idea you founded, you can in fact change something about your fellow human beings. To change them, is to make others more like one's self, but it is more the fact that you are you agent of change to produce such a change.

One can be altruistic, giving, sacrificing, and surviving pain in complete denial of the self so that others might have a better chance in life or some aspect therein. The benefit here of course is to make others feel better at the expense of personal glory necessarily being the result of your duties, so the statement of yourself is more to a small group who might never see you again.

Religion has the potential to inspire great deeds as well. For instance, the crusades during the middle ages. While not necessarily good in many aspects, the crusades were incredible symbols of faith within the ancient world. The benefit of religious strife is that you feel better about your actions in life (perhaps also the promise of an afterlife or similar reward becomes more realistic as a result), and you also achieve something for your religion which if you are part of more than likely expresses your ideals. The down side to religion is that religious achievements can be viewed as good or bad depending on the point of view those who observe the act hold. Also depending on the number involved in the act, you could be overshadowed, thereby making your defining of the self a definition only you are aware of.

You can even dress differently than others or make a political statement by doing so, etc. To dress differently from others is a way of showing publicly that you are a different person from them, that you are an individual. Many of my friends dress a certain way and it has gotten them into trouble more than a few times, yet they continue to do so at the expense of some people's caring for them, effectively taking on a martyr-like nature to the act.

There are also other ways one can define something about themself. There are almost endless symbolic gestures, suggestions, etc. that people can do to prove themselves to themselves or others. But here is the big question... Which of them is the noblest? What is the most admirable method of proclaiming something about yourself?

I think you got a little mixed up there. That is, between the definition of one self and what knowledge is one willing to pass on to the world. Violence, religion and the advertisement of one's thoughts and ideas would be, as the last states, a way to express thoughts, beliefs, etc. Now altruism and dressing up differently would be more along the lines of one's self definition.

The thing is, I don't believe that it's a good thing when one is simply trying to prove themselves to be this or that to anyone other than oneself. I suppose that's more of a society problem; everyone is too judgemental, but I digress.

The way I see it, maybe not the most noble, but the 'right' thing to do is to advertise one's thoughts and ideas, no matter the means to do so, and without concern about what people would think about one's person, but simply if they would get the message beneath one's thoughts and ideas.

Other: ALL OF THE ABOVE

I don't think I know anybody who defines themselves based on only one of the things mentioned in the poll. I think everybody uses all of them. If anything, the self is the sum of all things you are and all things around you.

Acting in a noble manner and defining yourself in relation to others are two separate pathways.

According to Nietzsche, acting in a noble manner would be to act according to one's instincts, which society has domesticated. To express this in a cliche, to be true to one's self, without being influenced by external sources. I have to agree, to some extent. However, when one is barbaric and harmful for no reason except pleasure, one is not noble but is in fact an animal.

Defining myself in relation to others, I tend to get uncomfortable when placed in a different situation, and I try to adapt but often fail. I'll have to get back to you on this question.

If returning to the ways of the days of yore is noble, what do you define embracing change and progression as? Although some aspects of the past societies are better, people as a whole are afraid of change - adapting to something different, something new, something... *gasp* strange. I believe that nobility is a trait of those who break old habits and adventure onwards into the future.

Change. The future is the dawn of change.

As I said in the v. Safety thread, I believe that change will bring pain and d3ath to s.

Wouldn't reviving the past also result in pain and death? Why not look ahead and confront destiny instead of letting it bite you in the a**?

Hmmm... if it were that easy to let go of the inflated ego and to allow oneself to be immersed by nature. If only. If only.