Would this fall under phenomenology? I know phenomenology is only a thinking tool which is less than I'm implying. The question stems from my perspective of philosophy one that rejects having to define what kind of truth is truth and what not. I apply a much more relativistic approach to philosophy. I tend to use people's reasoning against them to get them to that next logical step rather than skipping 10 steps ahead. The Socratic method if you will.

I understand this argument and I don't bother addressing it intentionally. There is essentially a lot to consider. But my philosophy is intentionally convenient because it's the same logic that most people use. Even you I would argue might be having a hard time separating this traditional view point from your own. This is more of a counter argument to the traditional concept of identity than it is an argument between scholars (something I forgot to mention sry).