I Don't Have an "Identity" But Perhaps I Have an Ontological Status?

I vaguely recall from taking undergraduate classes in philosophy decades ago that there was a book on personal identity by, I think, P. F. Strawson. Don't remember a single thing it said, though. Now, of course, we are inundated with identity, identifying, ID, identity theft, and Id, no, wait, that's something different.

I just ran across this in an article in the New York Times on plus-size dining:

For people who identify as large, plus-size or fat, dining out can be a social and physical minefield. Chairs with arms or impossibly small seats leave marks and bruises. Meals are spent in pain, or filled with worry that a flimsy chair might collapse.

Not wanting to pick on anyone, I'm a little plus-size myself from liking food a bit too much, but this grammar is just a bit odd, isn't it? Why would you say "identify as" instead of just "are?" I don't "identify" as being a bit overweight, I just am a bit overweight. From an Aristotelian point of view, I am substantially a man and my weight is accidental (meaning an adjunct quality, not essential) and it is true, I could lose that extra weight--and intend to! Starting next week!

The substance theory of Aristotle underlies his entire philosophy. Substance theory is the belief that substances are the ultimate things in the universe. The universe at rock bottom is not made up of elementary particles but substances. This is completely different from our modern view of the world. Aristotle defends this position in his books Categories and Metaphysics. His defense is long and detailed. Without an understanding of Aristotles logic, such a defense cannot even be understood today. Aristotle divides the world into two categories: substances and accidents- substances are the most fundamental.

A substance is a dog, a rock, a planet, a particle and a computer. An accident is something like being white, standing up, kicking that ball or being hit by Tom. It is somewhat helpful to think of substances as nouns and accidents as every other part of language. Nouns are about people, places or things. Substances are people, and things (places just refer to things). Accidents refer to features of substances. They are always the subject and object of the sentence. This gives a good indication of what substances and accidents are.

When I think of "identity" I think of something rather inherent to who or what I am. I underwent a significant transition a few years ago, one that I realized on my way to a concert. As I arrived at the door, wearing a nice sports jacket, a friend said, "I didn't realize you were playing in the concert tonight!" I had to reply I wasn't. Why was I dressed up? Ah, well the reason was that I had written a piece that was being premiered in the concert and so I might have to stand up at some point and bow.

This was for me a change in ontological status: I was no longer a performer but now a composer. My basic being in the world was not as someone who played music written by others, but one who wrote music for others to play. Of course I might write a piece with a guitar part that I might play myself, but that wouldn't return me to the ontological status of performer.

Let me give another example. In the great series of historical novels by Patrick O'Brian about the Royal Navy there is an instance where Captain Jack Aubrey, who plays the violin for personal entertainment, explains why he cannot be seen carrying the violin case in public. It always has to be carried by a servant or ordinary seaman. If he, an officer and gentleman were seen carrying a violin case someone might say in jest something like "give us a tune then, guvnor!" In which case, Aubrey might have to fight a duel or something just to preserve his honor. 18th century social practices were complicated! In any case, his ontological status as officer and gentleman prevented him from carrying his own violin around. Ah, those were the days!

I think I want to opt for this weird switch in terminology because if "identify as" is swapping in for "is" and "are" then I prefer to not have that sort of "identity." I'm ok with "ontological status" though because almost no-one will understand what it means. Philosophy is useful after all!

Let's have a tune, then. Here is the extraordinary Hilary Hahn with a little Presto by Bach: