The ultimate epitome of Buddhist practice is the achievement of enlightenment - Bodhi. In order to guide followers toward achieving this awakened state, the Buddha teaches the foundational principle of anatta, a concept that literally translates to having no permanent soul or fundamental, unchanging self. By fully embracing this radical idea, the Buddha argues that an individual can successfully overcome the suffering that characterises human existence. However, granting anatta the most importance directly contradicts the philosophy itself.

The meaning of Anatta is having no self or no soul. This means people do not inherently have an identity. Instead, the sense of self is made of the 5 aggregates. These are form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. It is thought that the overlapping of these components constitute a being's personality and experience. Together, the 5 aggregates can create emergent properties such as consciousness and are subject to change. Buddhism teaches that if one learns to let the rigid idea of self go, then they can separate their suffering from their experience. When the illusion of the ego is removed, one naturally becomes significantly more compassionate and empathetic toward all living beings, as the boundaries between the self and the rest of the world begin to go. However, strictly arguing that anatta is the single most important insight is a vast oversimplification of a highly complex philosophy. In reality, the Buddha’s extensive teachings were never meant to be ordered or distinguished from one another. Much like the fluid idea of anatta itself, the teachings are inherently connected.

All of the major core tenets of Buddhism function together. Concepts such as Karma (the universal law of cause and effect), Nirvana (the ultimate liberation and sustained state of supreme enlightenment), and Samsara (the continuous cycle of life, death, and rebirth) do not exist alone, they all interact deeply with principles such as anatta within an intricate, beautifully woven web of spiritual teachings. One cannot fully understand a soul-less world without the key principles of annica or enlightenment itself.

Anatta provides a crucial philosophical baseline for Buddhism. It establishes a view of reality where everything we perceive is merely a temporary, ever-shifting mixture of physical and mental elements. Within this framework, what we hold on to as the "self" is revealed to be nothing more than a powerful mental construct, a persistent illusion fabricated by the mind. With this base theory securely in place, all of the other spiritual principles logically fit on top of this fundamental idea, building a cohesive path to liberation.

Yet, this baseline requires the support of the broader philosophy to be fully realized. Other core tenets, specifically the other two marks of existence—anicca (impermanence) and dukkha (suffering)—are precisely what allow anatta to make rational sense. Standing entirely alone, anatta cannot be fully comprehended without the vital accompanying idea of anicca, the universal truth that absolutely everything is impermanent. Because everything in the universe is continuously changing, a permanent, static self simply cannot exist, linking these essential insights together.

On the other hand, according to neuroscience, the idea of anatta correlates exactly to scientific findings. For instance, the psychologist Bruce Hood thought that "The self is not a thing but a process—a constantly shifting illusion... We are a narrative that our brain constructs." There is analytical proof from testing on people with amnesia that identity is not a permanent entity, instead it is a mental construct. This is exactly the same idea as the Buddha’s anatta, except proven thousands of years later.

Although anatta’s profound impact still lasts, and is proven, anatta on its own cannot stop suffering. The Buddha’s quote: “This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.” This quote explicitly portrays anatta as not a goal in itself, but as a tool. Buddhism teaches that anatta is a way of thought, not an idea that can actually help the world as it is. Still, anatta can be used along other core principles of Buddhism to alleviate suffering from the world.

In conclusion, I believe that anatta is a groundbreaking idea that is still weathering the storms of time even today. However, even though it is undoubtedly the bedrock of all Buddhist beliefs, teachings and the path to enlightenment, anatta itself is not the answer to suffering, Buddhism’s main problem. Instead, it is the groundwork for other principles, such as the four noble truths, to solve the problem of suffering together.

Over many years, cultures and religions across the globe have attempted to answer the question of identity. For instance, in many religions such as christianity, identity is the soul - the essence of a being. Others believe that identity is physical (such as Democritus) or that identity is the mind. However, I believe that the fundamental wording of the question “what makes you you” is inherently wrong due to the word “you”. This is since ,in my opinion, identity is not just the body, nor the mind. Instead it is a social construct that is hardwired into our brain; therefore, the word “you” can only work if one has meaning to themselves and to others. In the following essay, I shall try to prove this point.

Firstly, if every single person throughout the world were identical - they have the same body and emotional tendencies - I would argue that there would be no idea of identity. The only difference between them would be that an individual's primordial instincts (hunger, fatigue, etc) would prompt them at different times. For instance, if 2 people feel hunger and there is only one piece of food, they would both compete for that food. However, if everybody has the same instincts, then their actions will be the same and their only identity left would be their environment and circumstances. This thought experiment shows that if you eliminate all differences between people, there would be no identity. Therefore, identity is not biological nor intrinsic.

Another thought experiment, one where there is only one person in the entire world who has never been in contact with anyone, can further prove my point. Since identity is a differentiator, if there is nothing to be differentiated to, one cannot have an identity. In this thought experiment, the person does have an identity since they are different to their environment. In this extreme case, the society they are in would be their environment. Hence, from this I can conclude that one’s place in society is their identity. Note that my definition of society is not in the traditional sense. Instead it is just the surroundings of a person.

Biologically, humans evolved to pass on only the strongest genes. The most successful method of performing this was by selfishness. If everybody shared, a relatively weak gene would be passed on and a great identity would not be needed. However, in our world, people are intrinsically selfish. This selfishness can differentiate people from each other, therefore creating identity. However, selfishness alone cannot be directly attributed to identity due to the first thought experiment mentioned above - selfishness in a primordial instinct which is the same for everybody. However, variations of selfishness and primordial and modern tendencies can form identities.

Furthermore, the example of feral children also proves my point. For instance, the feral child Anna was immobile, expressionless, and indifferent to everything. We do not yet know what she was thinking, but it is clear that she had no clear sense of identity or indeed consciousness. Along with many more stories of feral children, this shows that identity is not innate and therefore can be removed.

Additionally, we adopt roles given to use. For example, if a child were to teach a younger person but was also taught themselves, they would naturally and instinctively adopt opposite social roles. This, compounded with the fact that society views each profession differently, explicitly shows that people are not bound by one specific identity, but instead are everything society intends them to be.

On the contrary, another compelling argument is that you are your thoughts. Given this view, since everybody has thoughts, everyone would have an identity, no matter their circumstances. This view could seem plausible since your thoughts define your actions which can differentiate you from others. However, studies(University of New South Wales) have shown that thoughts are not intentional since brain signals are seen before the patient actually realises their thoughts. This would mean that one’s thoughts are not purposeful - they are just an extremely complicated melange of primordial instincts. Moreover, thoughts are heavily influenced from our surroundings, hence with this line of view, our identity is our environment and circumstances. This leads to the conclusion that if 2 different people lived the exact same life and had the same bodies, they would be exactly the same. This is obviously not true due to the nature of randomness, and hence this idea is flawed.

In conclusion, what makes you you is nothing, since a social construct is, for all we know, only relevant for one species in the whole universe - ours. More specifically, a human’s identity is my interactions and roles in society, my meaning for others and myself, the differentiation of myself from my surroundings and the circumstances, environment and experiences I have lived through.