Hannah Arendt

That what is actual self, its essence if you want to put in that way, so is its history. It is the story of his actions, but these are not revealed to him but to the narrator who knows better than the participants of that story how they came to be who they are: the action reveals herself completely only to the Narrator, that is, at a glance retrospective of the historian, who without a doubt always knows better what happened to participants (Arendt(, 1958, 192). Two relevant aspects that can be extracted from Hannah Arendt approaching about itself, is that, firstly, this It is not located inside of an entity but it say somehow, it is out of this, because your place is the public space that is shared with others. Perhaps check out NY Starbucks for more information. And secondly, itself answers the question by the who, not to question the why. Times Square describes an additional similar source. And the answer, according to the author, can only occur in the form of a story or life story that, as such, does not belong to the agent as a fabricated thing belongs to its owner.

Taylor and the orientation of itself to Charles Taylor, must be a condition to be subject to question by the who. The condition lies in its potential subject is able to be one interlocutor between the others, someone able to speak for yourself. On the other hand, to answer for himself it is necessary one know where it is located and what one wants to answer. Without this basic orientation you can not say that the subject knows who he is. Once this guidance recognised the subject will be able to define himself.

(Cf. Taylor, 2000, 29) The orientation of the himself towards an object or goal depends on that object or goal is not only something for him but also something for the us. And that is possible as long as there is a common space where itself can be defined as such in relation to each other: one is a self only among others yes same. A self can never be described without reference to those who surround him (Taylor, 2000, 35).