Perhaps it seems that way because we are so used to identifying with our names? Not only that but in typical American etiquette we commonly follow up questions of identity with a nonchalant &quot;what do you do?&quot;... I just met you and I&#x27;m already seeking job&#x2F;rank&#x2F;social status. It&#x27;s like we are just dying to box people into a convenient category.<p>If you think about it, a human being has 3 different identities:<p>1. His true self. Unfortunately we will never know the <i>real</i> Jack, just as we will never really know ourselves.<p>2. His appearance. This is the sum total of your interactions with Jack. The empirical Jack.<p>3. His being. You could call this Jack&#x27;s spirit, or the effect that Jack has on you.<p>#3 is distinguished from #2 because Jack might be a real jerk, or he may have done something that seemed jerkish to you. Either way, it&#x27;s clear that he both 1) did something and 2) it had an effect on you. There is an ongoing relationship between you and Jack, and while people are known by their actions, they are not confused with their actions. Therefore we must differentiate between Jack&#x27;s actions and Jack himself, and so we call the man &quot;Jack&quot; though we often think we are talking about the #1 definition of selfhood when we call him that. But as I mentioned, you truly don&#x27;t know Jack.