Defining the Self: A Logical Exploration

Can you define yourself? Can you define your life? Can the answer be literal? What does logic have to do with any of that? As I discuss in Logic in the Wild, definitions serve as first principles of reasoning, alongside assumptions and axioms. Definitions are sometimes instrumental, for instance, in geometry, where there are no observable starting points. Instead, one typically defines what points, lines, and angles are, and then applies logic to unpack results in the form of theorems.

In science, there’s a clash between how the concept of mass is defined in Newtonian and relativistic physics—a clash that can be accommodated but that, without some coherence treatment, could lead to bad results. There are parts of science, however, where definitions matter little and can become a red herring for public debate, as when the definition of a planet was changed by a vote at a convention to demote Pluto from the status of a planet. While I don’t believe the new definition of a planet is justified or appropriate, it doesn’t matter whether we call Pluto a planet or not. It won’t affect our interest in studying it, the pictures we’ll take of it with the probes we send out, or anything besides what kids get to memorise in school and what models of the solar system look like at science fairs.

Now, where would a definition of the self belong on that spectrum? I don’t see how we could define a “self” as a first principle of reasoning like geometers define points or lines. Nor is it as insignificant as whether to call Pluto a planet or not. Is it, then, more like how mass is defined and treated in different scientific theories? Not really. For one, I wouldn’t claim that science has much to say in how we understand identity, the self, and presence in the world. It’s just not what it’s good at. But perhaps there’s something analogous that can help, namely that a definition is sometimes a way to categorise and articulate an important component. In science, a component of a theory, but in human existence, what life is and means for the you.

So, a definition is not there to bring you into existence but to help you articulate how you understand who you are and your presence in the world. And logic kicks in by guiding you in finding coherence in the way you articulate your life, perhaps in the narrative you give to understand your world, perhaps in a more direct way in identifying what makes you who you are. But of course, defining yourself or your life is more a metaphorical statement, something about establishing your presence in the world by owning your actions and your identity. Definition is then a much thicker concept that encapsulates a complex and rich understanding of who you are and your presence in the world. Even there, though, logic can still be there to guard coherence in the expression of your self.

Beyond the Bedroom Door: The Multifaceted Nature of Coming Out

What does coming out as a gay man mean? I was talking to a friend recently, someone who grew up as a gay man at the very end of the last millennium. He claimed that coming out is essentially announcing one’s sexual preferences, which deviate from the patriarchal, heterosexual norm and have been pathologized by science and criminalized by governments in the previous couple centuries, as analyzed by Michel Foucault. In Canada, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau decriminalized homosexuality in the 1970s, stating that the government had no business in the bedrooms of the nation. The evolution from the early to the late twentieth century in understanding what it means to be a gay man shifted from viewing it as a criminal pathology to regarding it as sexual practices that deviate from the norm but are tolerated so long as they occur behind closed doors. Thus, coming out has been minimized to announcing what one prefers to do behind those closed doors. Maintaining this simplicity is convenient for the orthodoxy because it requires minimal change in its values, practices, and roles. As long as what gay men do remains outside of the public eye, everything can proceed as before.

However, for the individual revealing their identity, reducing it to sexual practices creates a form of injustice, perhaps a hermeneutical injustice, as elaborated by Miranda Fricker. Being a gay man around 2020 in Canada signifies a much richer identity. It means engaging in one's community with a whole way of living, including reproduction, raising children, and potentially redefining what it means to be in a romantic relationship or marriage. Coming out signifies much more than disclosing one's sexuality; it is about adopting a way of living, a presence in the community, a being in the world that cannot be reduced to sexual activities behind closed doors. What happens behind closed doors is indeed nobody's business, and coming out should not be diminished to a mere admission. This perspective is from gay men so far, my standpoint.

But coming out for the rest of the people under the rainbow still needs to be fully understood. If the coming out of gay men could be simplified to announcing one's sexual deviation while preserving everything else as equal, this does not generalize to lesbians, trans individuals, asexuals, and the rest of the rainbow. Their identities are much richer than their sexuality and are more visible and still clash with patriarchal norms. My point, then, is that reducing a coming out to an announcement of sexuality does a form of violence by erasing identities. We can, and must, do better.