# Are we all the same person?

**URL:** <https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/are-we-all-the-same-person/11966>\
**Category:** General Discussion\
**Created:** [May 6, 2026, 12:12am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/are-we-all-the-same-person/11966 "2026-05-06T00:12:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![inthedarkness](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/inthedarkness/32/23404_2.png) [@inthedarkness](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/inthedarkness)\
**Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 12:12am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/are-we-all-the-same-person/11966/1 "2026-05-06T00:12:26Z")

</div>

The philosophy is called Open Individualism and it’s a quirky one that essentially says that everyone is the same person, likely because there is no ultimate distinction between folks (so they say). I have my reservations, I believe we are all connected but not all the same.

> **[Philosophical Sundays: Why We Are All the Same Person](https://web.archive.org/web/20181003123212/http://www.davidyerle.com/philosophical-sundays-why-we-are-all-the-same-person/)**
>
> Lately I’ve been writing a lot of science popularization, but today I want to get dirty with philosophy by defending a view that I’m convinced will make most of you disagree with me, which will be …

> **[You are everyone that ever existed, and ever will exist: on Open Individualism](https://edralis.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/you-are-everyone-that-ever-existed-and-ever-will-exist-on-open-individualism/)**
>
> If you’ve ever read the short story “The Egg” by Andy Weir, this might turn out to be somewhat familiar to you. In the philosophy of personal identity, this position is known as universalism …

I’d suggest reading the first one, though I cannot say I’m fond of their over reliance on thought experiments to prove their point and no actual data. Having read the first one the thought experiment itself is also very underwhelming and question beggy.

I’m also not seeing how it would lead to Kantian morality either (a system that itself is kinda broken). It’s a wayback so there is no real way to follow up.

EDIT: I read the second one and it is somehow worse than the first. IT’s just incoherent thoughts and a lot of question begging or thought experiments. There isn’t anything solid.