I'll leave this to Rand; "Existence is identity". That is, to be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes". That which has no nature or attributes does not and cannot exist. The axiom of existence is conceptualized as differentiating something from nothing, while the law of identity is conceptualized as differentiating one thing from another, i.e., one's first awareness of the law of non-contradiction, another crucial base for the rest of knowledge.

a definition is a list of minimal qualities that are associated with a particular label

Yes, my definition is congruent with Ayn Rand's

You're getting there, @ManAnimal.

Indeed.

her's however is incomplete

Identity is also subjective and can be given and taken away by others, same as it can be attributed to oneself or lost (usually your personal identity is pretty fucking deeply rooted in your psyche so this one ain't that easy, but identity given by another or a group is an ezpz what we can see literally every day with SJW cucks getting cancelled and losing literally all friends, money, job opportunities and health)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEemebVX4AI4vxi.jpg

That's why you should never embrace the identity others give you

Existence exists isn't enough to seprate identity from definition

however, everthing that exists influences at least one other existant... covers that defficency

others only can DEFINE you

a definition is external

Not really

and identity is internal

only YOU know those unique attributes and methods

But I think it's a good simplification

but other's reference the label

Nah, you can't really know yourself and that's the funny thing

the definition

other's can't know your 'identity'

And most people know about themselves less than others

to them, they only need the minimal set of traits that sets you apart from the set of entities they have encountered

Others can identify you as for example, an enemy or a member of an outgroup. If they can do it then it's in the realy of possibility

so if a person never encounted a black kid before and you are black, that is sufficient to identify you from the others

the point is the is the set of comparison for the other person and the set of comparison for you

And to you, you don't need any traits, is that what you mean?

Sorry I haven't slept and just finished a paper my brainz don't work properly

what i mean it is only the mimimum required given a variable set of comparison

the baby can use any label they like for the cat

they only need to differentiate it from the dog

It's an abstraction of the cat.

correct

it's a representation

which is only 'good enough' to seperate it from other representations they have accumulated

That's why the abstraction of concepts from physical referents is an crucial basis of knowledge.

But identity is something that's identifiable so on the very basic lingual level it is still possible to

You’re referring to what is known as a “ schema ” in psychology terms by Piaget

The reason why I vehemently oppose individuals who seek to reverse the process.

as the set of representations expands, more traits are required to differntiate and identify an entity

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)