The "Self"

[quatona]

Does the concept of a "self" play an important part in your philosophy?

How and why is it important to you and/or crucial to your philosophy?

How do you conceptualize the "self" (what´s your definition of the word, what are the particularities of your concept, what makes the "self" - as opposed to characteristics you possibly don´t include in the "self" -, etc. etc.)?


Do you ascribe some sort of permanence to the "self", or is that even a defining criterium, in your concept?

TIA

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm not sure my understanding of self plays an important part or not. I guess it relates to free will, and self-consciousness relates to the right to life (in my opinion).

I think it is important to recognize that objectively we don't choose to think our thoughts, or choose our actions. Our Self is merely the subjective observer of the conscious mind and the world outside.

However, it is necessary to take a subjective point of view to live. That means living like we have free will.

I've heard the Self compared to a string. In a string, no one thread runs the whole way through it, but together they make a whole. That means you can take some threads out, and still see it as a whole. Rather than being one thing, the Self could be a number of different capacities, that alone wouldn't be a Self.

It is perhaps hard to answer whether a 70 year old is the same Self as they were at 2 years old.

I haven't really thought this all through yet, as you can probably tell.

 

[sinning machine]

All is vanity

 

[Eudaimonist]

Does the concept of a "self" play an important part in your philosophy?

Yes, I might talk approvingly about self-interest, self-awareness, self-actualization, self-knowledge, or self-esteem. So the English word "self" is used extensively in my philosophical narrative.

How and why is it important to you and/or crucial to your philosophy?

That's because my philosophy is individualistic in placing an importance on the existence, capacities, and ethical worth of the individual.

Note though that I'm not atomistic in my individualism. I recognize that we flourish with and among other people in society, but society exists for the good of individuals, not the other way around.

How do you conceptualize the "self"?

When speaking of human beings, I often use the word to refer to the human organism as a complete biological entity. Myself refers to everything about me as an individual. To be self-aware would not just include being aware of my mental contents, but being aware of my body and that my body is an aspect of my existence as a human being.

However, sometimes I use the word more specifically to refer to that about a human being that thinks, feels, values, chooses, and acts. In this sense, I mean something close to the psyche or ego.

I think that objectively we (as emergent phenomena that we may call "persons" or "selves") choose to think at least some thoughts and choose at least some actions. We are rationally self-directed and self-determining beings. However, I don't use the concept self to refer narrowly and exclusively to a "subjective observer".

Do you ascribe some sort of permanence to the "self", or is that even a defining criterium, in your concept?

No, the self is dynamic (i.e. changing) and far from permanent. We eventually die, and then everything that is unique and personal to us as individuals disintegrates and disappears. I tend to agree with the Buddhists that there is no eternal, indestructible soul or self.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jannikitty]

Simplistic maybe but, to me self is conscious awareness of who I am as a person. This can mean different things to different people depending on their perspective beliefs, viewpoints, and experiences.

For me: My conscience awareness is that I am who God says I am-His child, redeemed by the blood of His Son, and an instrument used by Him to know Him, love Him, and serve Him and thus to love and serve others.

As the ancient philosopher said: "Know thyself" And as the bard said: "To thy own self be true and it follows as the day does the night thou canst not be false to any man." (or woman) And as Jesus said: "Love thy neighbor as thy self."

 

[quatona]

It is perhaps hard to answer whether a 70 year old is the same Self as they were at 2 years old.

Yes, I think this lies at the core of my question.

 

[Aeroflotte]

Does the concept of a "self" play an important part in your philosophy?

I'm not sure anymore. I used to use the word often, but I don't remember the last time I used it. What does that mean?

Edit: After thinking about this first question after answering the others, I would say that I do still use the self in my philosophy, but I don't call it that anymore. I believe that my conceptualizing is now done within the self, so it seems silly to use the word self. It's like being inside my bedroom and talking about my bedroom as if I were outside of it.

How and why is it important to you and/or crucial to your philosophy?

It was important to me because my experiences led me to adopt its usage. It completed the already forming philosophy.

How do you conceptualize the "self" (what´s your definition of the word, what are the particularities of your concept, what makes the "self" - as opposed to characteristics you possibly don´t include in the "self" -, etc. etc.)?

When I did use the word, it was like a synonym for the filters through which we understand the world. If someone disagreed with me, I wouldn't take the disagreement personally, I'd just relegate it to the conclusions of that person based upon that person's experiences.

Do you ascribe some sort of permanence to the "self", or is that even a defining criterium, in your concept?

None whatsoever. The self would die with the physical body.

 

[quatona]

Interesting responses so far!
Thanks everyone!

 

[louise sheinholtz]

Does the concept of a "self" play an important part in your philosophy?

How and why is it important to you and/or crucial to your philosophy?

How do you conceptualize the "self" (what´s your definition of the word, what are the particularities of your concept, what makes the "self" - as opposed to characteristics you possibly don´t include in the "self" -, etc. etc.)?


Do you ascribe some sort of permanence to the "self", or is that even a defining criterium, in your concept?

TIA

.................................................................................................................
Hi Quatona

Just a few simple words, The self was born pure and so the soul was pure.
We have been corrupted by one thing, person, place or another so the self has changed, but there is a way for the self to change, to become innocent again so the soul can become reborn, new and pure, no longer corrupted by resentments, judgments the place to start is to forgive. Holding grudges only hurt the self, you, me, others.
You have to become aware of these parts of the self in order to overcome them.
My best shot, I hope you understood my simple words.
Louise

 

[louise sheinholtz]

[
I replied fully, but lost my message so I will answer your question very simply.
The self happened when we are born, All of our experiences has changed the newly born self. Our souls were also born pure but the self has been corrupted by our life experiences and the self needs to be observed and changed, lets call it, being reborn, a religious term.
I am not religious, but, this is my simple explanation as I have understood it in myself and others.

Louise

I guess my first post came up, sorry for the duplicate

 

[Illuminaughty]

People generally slice up a certain portion of the world process and call it their "self". Where the cut is made seems rather arbitrary and tends to vary a lot between definitions. The mind created boundaries that result often seem vague and fuzzy. I use the term in everyday speech for the sake of convenience but not so much when I'm trying to think philosophically.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I think the Buddhists did a god job demolishing the "common sense" view of a self centuries ago and some of the Process Philosophers of today have brought in some newer arguments doing the same.

...in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process...." -A Buddhist Dictionary
​

​

 

[quatona]

Thanks again for all your responses!

I hope you don´t mind that - for the time being - I am not going to discuss your posts. I just enjoy letting the the variety of ideas sink in.

Illuminaughty: It´s almost as if you had summarized my own view better than I could.
I particularly like your sig-line. Is that your work?

 

[Resha Caner]

Does the concept of a "self" play an important part in your philosophy?

I imagine the concept is there, but I don't have something ready at my fingertips. My philosophical discussions usually focus on God rather than me, so I've never had much need to fill out concepts of self.

I suppose my thoughts would go to terms like "soul" and "spirit".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Just as science is a model of the world, so the self is a model of humanity, and specifically ones individuality. Thus the self model can be "true" or "false", accurate or inaccurate.

I suppose that there can be a science of the self, as a world embedded creature on a quest for a reality worth something, and is a from the abstract perspective bundle of thoughts beliefs, dispositions etc.

All of this is a functional adaptation, a vehicle which as a rule helps human genes replicate. The self is plastic, or like 'clay' to interpret genesis symbolically, but can model well or otherwise depending on individual and cultural skill. I suppose if we are biological fauna, oriented towards objects (lovers) and chemicals (food) then having a plan of who we are as well as a plan (map) of the environment will help orient us more efficiently.

I learned a lot about the malleability of self in tantric buddhism where one "self generated" (in ones mind and imagination at least) not as oneself but as a "yidam" or tantric deity, for example iirc avelokiteshvara who symbolises compassion. When one assumed this kind of identity it is meant to make it more easy to be compassionate, just as if one thought "Im Jacky Chan" one might try all sorts of stunts. One can see effects like this in children who identify with sports heroes and heroines.

 

[Paradoxum]

Yes, I think this lies at the core of my question.

I'd say the 70 year old probably can be said to be the same person as when they were 2 years old, because of the continuation of the mind. There haven't been large quick shifts in the mind.

It could also be true that they are a different person in some sense. The personality you identify as being that of the adult, could be radically different from that of the child. Perhaps that is also true with some brain damage.

I doubt it is necessary to draw a hard line, and say that the adult either is or isn't the same person as the child. It depends how you look at it.

That could still mean teleportation would be death in some sense though.

 

[ThouArtThat]

The self, the human organism, isn't a fixed, separate thing, it's a part of one flowing, continuous process called the universe. Just like in a whirlpool, the atoms or energy in our bodies is always changing, flowing in and out of us. It goes in as water, milk, steak, vegetables, oxygen, sunlight, and then comes out as excrement, carbon-monoxide, sweat, tears, babies, language, music, poetry, art, science, literature, ect.

People generally slice up a certain portion of the world process and call it their "self". Where the cut is made seems rather arbitrary and often varies a lot between definitions. The mind created boundaries that result often seem vague and fuzzy. I use the term in everyday speech for the sake of convenience but not so much when I'm trying to think philosophically.

I agree, the distinction between self and other is something we made up. We broke the world into bits to help make sense of it and talk about it, but in reality everything is one.

 

[Aeroflotte]

I agree, the distinction between self and other is something we made up.

I agree that the distinction is objectively nonsense, but from a subjective point of view, how can that which is part of us biologically be made up? I think that the self, whatever it may be exactly, is a necessary component in order to interact with the universe, alongside the senses. Individuality, while objectively non-existent perhaps, subjectively exists I believe due to the ability to see that we're not connected to the earth, that we can move around and even leave the earth. The image of independence seems to me to be what creates the idea of individuality.

So, again, I don't disagree with what you're saying; I believe that what you're saying is only half of the picture. If the self is indeed an illusion, a made up entity, then does it simply vanish into nothingness once we've detected it? Perhaps some religions like Buddhism believe so, but then how do we know that the self has really disappeared after enlightenment? Has anyone here been enlightened yet? Do we have some firsthand accounts? My take is that we can acknowledge that the self is an illusion, but that we have to deal with it, like we have to deal with imperfections in communication.

I think that any philosophy that objectively sees the self as an illusion while not acknowledging that it does exist subjectively, is effectively dehumanizing.

This is perhaps not what you meant, but I wrote all of this anyway.

 

[ThouArtThat]

I agree that the distinction is objectively nonsense, but from a subjective point of view, how can that which is part of us biologically be made up?

It's made up in the sense that it is just a way of looking at the world, it's an optical illusion created by our limited consciousness. Our consciousness, the way it works, can only focus on one thing at a time, like a spotlight, and so we naturally break things up, and imagine them to be separate.

I think that the self, whatever it may be exactly, is a necessary component in order to interact with the universe, alongside the senses. Individuality, while objectively non-existent perhaps, subjectively exists I believe due to the ability to see that we're not connected to the earth, that we can move around and even leave the earth. The image of independence seems to me to be what creates the idea of individuality.

We can leave the Earth, but we must take some of it with us, or we'll die. You're just as dependent on the Earth as you are on your heart or lungs, and the Earth dependent on the Sun and the space in which it moves, and so on.

So, again, I don't disagree with what you're saying; I believe that what you're saying is only half of the picture. If the self is indeed an illusion, a made up entity, then does it simply vanish into nothingness once we've detected it?

If it's an illusion, what is there to vanish? The feeling? Maybe if you still feel like you're a separate self, you haven't fully realized the illusion. There's all kinds of exercises you can go through to help you realize it, methods of controlling or pacifying the mind, but the point of these is to make you see that there is no self, and therefore there was no problem to begin with. As the saying goes, a fool who persists in his folly will become wise.

 

[ThouArtThat]

The Gateless Gate; 41

Bodhidharma Pacifies the Mind

Bodhidharma sits facing the wall. His future successor stands in the snow and presents his severed arm to Bodhidharma. He cries: "My mind is not pacified. Master, pacify my mind."

Bodhidharma says: "If you bring me that mind, I will pacify it for you."

The successor says: "When I search my mind I cannot hold it."

Bodhidharma says: "Then your mind is pacified already."