Are there any philosophical works that deal a lot with the nature of man and the nature identity, especially in relation to their fellow man and society? If a man is stripped of his lineage, history, possessions, professions, and friends, then what, in society, is he if anything at all? I know Heidegger writes a lot about the nature of "Being", but I'm moreso interested in constructions of identity and what it means to define oneself, or be defined by others and other things.
I'm reading Frankenstein and I'm curious as to how many philosophical angles may be floating around the mythos of it all.
>>7837082
Not quite sure at what you are aiming for, but Thomas Hobbes(book: Leviathan), describes people in their natural state ("No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short").
John Locke does it too (kinda) but more oriented towards the society and state
the razors edge
>>7837082
>to define oneself, or be defined by others and other things.
Sartre is the exact blend of phenomenology, sociology and psychology that you're looking for.
![[board name here].png](https://i.imgur.com/wPhW7Y2.png "[board name here].png")
What really fascinates me is the paradoxical "existent nonexistence" of Frankenstein's monster, the fact that he exists, but entirely isolated and rejected. I felt tinges of it a few weeks ago when I lost my wallet - it felt so bizarre to have no cash (on me) and no identification, it was like I had ceased to be from a systematic perspective, like my life has just been lost in some kind of existential clerical error. That possibly stems from the cultural ideology of over-categorizing, everything and everyone needs so many labels and identities and licenses...it's like paper with nothing on it isn't blank, but invisible.
>>7837786
Awesome, thank you. I'm vaguely familiar with Sarte; I know a bit about the table waiter character he writes about - "Being and Nothingness", right? - but I've been aching REALLY read him for a while now. Is he super obscure and dense, or fairly easy to understand? As interested as I am, I'm pretty bad at reading philosophy and usually need supplementary materials.
>>7837702
I'm familiar with the Leviathan, his theories on the social contract are pretty good thoughtfood and his "natural state" of fear and brutishness is pretty much what the poor monster goes through for the entire book. In that sense, the Monster's pretty much someone who fell through a loophole in the social contract, an abject afterimage of the natural state shunned by a "polite" society. What's tragic is that after his attempts at joining this polite society are constantly rejected, he really does become one with the Leviathan and ends up a murderer, performing acts that before he couldn't even fathom the motivations for.
In case you guys can't tell, I've got a lot of strong feelings about Frankenstein's monster.
