To grasp the concept of “I”, we have to relate it against a multitude of “I”s. Clearly, the “I am I” refers not to an equation of one individual to another — it is a self-assertion of the identity of the singular individual. Thus both “I”s in the assertion refer to the same particular, defined against the other “I”s given by the universal property of the “I”. How does the particular “I” define itself against the other “I”? It does so by positing those other “I”s as “not-I”, in the bustling mess known as Life.

So I am that which stands over and against the worldly phenomena, known as the “I”. This grants the individual “I” a strong sense of empowerment — I can effect tangible changes on the world; I am significant to this grand scheme of things; I am none other than the unique I. In this defining moment of self-consciousness, individualism emerges with an absurd power. The claim that “I am I” is no longer empty and tautological — it is now a reckoning of a force, a surging significance that is not bound to Life.

However, this process cannot last. In encountering other self-conscious “I”, who at the same time, assert that “I am I”, the individual “I” becomes aware that it is not itself recognized by the other “I” as an “I” proper, but instead as part of what it had defined itself against, namely, Life. In realizing that the “I” itself is merely part of Life of the others, the individual now struggles to win its own significance that it had conjured for itself; the right to assert “I am I” with sheer force. In order to do this, it has to eradicate the other “I” to be reckoned as the “I”. This very struggle; a fight for reckoning in essence, is known by the Life-Death struggle of the self-consciousnesses. In order for the individual to become the pure “I”, not subsumed by other “I”s as merely part of Life, the individual “I”s pit each other into a challenge for recognition.

At this stage, the assertion “I am I” is elevated as a champion trophy for the worthy survivor of a deadly Battle Royale for recognition. The individual seeks for others to recognise itself as something significant, which cannot be simply cast aside. This need for recognition for others to view the individual as an independent entity is the core of radical individualism — I demand that you recognise my individuality, and no one else can threaten its status. Thus, the individualist fights to protect their own individuality; to drag the “I” into its own embrace and no one else’s.

Vilhelm Hammers, 1903, “Interieur mit Rueckenansicht einer Frau”.

However, in reality, no one does that. Besides getting into law and jurisprudence issues, there lies a huge irony within this struggle for life and death — the lack of recognition after the struggle. By negating the existence of the other, I also negate the very basis of recognition that I require to affirm my individuality. Fighting others to their death means that there is no one to recognise my individuality, because ultimately, recognition is two-way. In order to be independent, I have to be dependent on the others’ recognition of me as an independent being.

As such, the natural solution is for the individual not to negate the existence of the other, but to subordinate its existence to mine. As far as we are both individuals, my individuality is has greater independence than yours. And here we arrive at what is perhaps one of the most momentous Hegel’s self-consciousness — the Master/Slave relation.

Having went through the life and death struggle, the Master is the one that emerges with greater independence as compared to the Slave. In staking one’s life to fight for recognition as the independent “I”, the Slave renounces the need for that recognition in exchange for his own physical life. The Master naturally takes up the recognition by tasking the Slave to Work. The Slave thus works to satisfy the Master’s needs and desires, by working on the Object of the external world into products that fit the purpose.

The Master/Slave relation is one of one-sided recognition and exploitation. In this stage, the “I” belongs to both Master and Slave, but the Master gets the main call of the “I”. While each individual Slave calls him or herself “I”, this “I” of the Slave has a lower status of the “I” of the Master, for the Slave is always dependent on the Master to give recognition to its independence, which is simply another form of dependence to being with.

This certainly rings true to many people out in the world. In hierarchical workplaces, the presence of the executives are felt as much more domineering than that of the workers. While the executives have much more opportunities to express themselves as an independent “I”, the workers are always bunched and termed within the collective “we”. As such, this lack of recognition for the fundamental independence of the workers lead to a form of fascination of the “I”: what does it feel like to be the “I” of my boss? As the workers are conscious of their own renunciations of their independence, they see the “I” of their bosses as more independent than theirs.

This form of fascination for the true “I” in form of alienation leads the workers to seek ways to express their individuality in various ways. They flock to self-help gurus, churches, and some go to the length of intellectualising around their own being in order to live their fantasy of being the true independent “I”. Here, we finally see why the assertion “I am I” bears such a significance for many — it is an escape of the alienation that the workers found themselves in, having given their independence over to their executives. The thought of the profound “I”, the infinitely potent “I” that they fantasise their Master as having, tranquilizes the Worker’s feeling of dependency and leads him/her to believe that he/she can be that “I” that they dream of. This usually takes the form of engaging in little reveries of the infinite potential they have within them, seeking to express themselves as patiently advised by the gurus.