"Self"

[Phoenix Wright]

What is the forest's opinion on whether or not a "self" exists or not?

[Celice]

Descartes whole spiel on it was that if he doubted, something had to exist for that doubt to be felt--a "doubter" had "to be." an "être" in existence. But this is a form of self-confirming bias--simply because something can justify itself doesn't mean it's true.

I believe a self exists. I also believe you're stuck with that self--and can never escape it. But maybe it's not so much exists--I believe that at this moment, I am perceiving, feeling, doubting, self-doubting, believing, constructing, eradicating, and forlornly, possibly masturbating metaphorically. I do not say that the current state I'm in has not happened in some way--but I am doubtful that the past or future has.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Celice

[ShinKuma]

Self is what one believes IMO.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I believe in a "self" if only because there are some assumptions you have to operate under in order to function, and it seems a reasonable one.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'm wondering if there's anyone here that doesn't believe in a self. Sadly, all of my topics seem to end quickly. This is the last time I let some Facebook discussion influence my actual thoughts...ugh. I knew this was a dumb question, lol.

[Kay]

I think it's a valid question, the only problem is that it's impractical to disbelieve in the self.

[Crystal Shards]

I don't believe in a self, at least a predetermined self that is constant throughout life. My idea of self was different at age 5 from that which I had at age 10, and both of those are different from my sense of self now. There is a usefulness to having a sense of self, but it's useless to use it to define yourself fully. Every single one of us has aspects to our personalities, beliefs, etc., that we don't realize, so to limit oneself through an idea of self is, well, limiting.

In other words I don't really believe in it, but make use of it when necessary because that's how people operate.

[Excellen Browning]

I think therefore I am.

[Celice]

I believe in a "self" if only because there are some assumptions you have to operate under in order to function, and it seems a reasonable one.

Really? There are some funtions which we can call beneficial to understand and operate under, but I don't think there are any assumptions we have to understand and operate under. Unless you have any good examples?

This is the last time I let some Facebook discussion influence my actual thoughts...ugh. I knew this was a dumb question, lol.

You didn't give it much time to get attention (this thread). What was the influence, pray tell :?

[Phoenix Wright]

You didn't give it much time to get attention (this thread). What was the influence, pray tell :?

It was an odd start, no doubt about that. A friend of mine posted a link to what Obama has "actually" done, to combat the conservatives that are my age and go to our school. And, so, another person (I didn't know at all) posted what he thought was the reason politicians are not trustworthy, et cetera, and he said that we don't exist. He said that Descartes idea of having thoughts, therefore self, is a crappy argument all around, due to thoughts "popping up without a self involved." At first I ignored this, my friend and I also joked with him a little bit too. I posted a video from TheAmazingAtheist on Youtube about individualism, and he stated again the we did not exist (because I thought he was joking at first). Well, to make a longer story short, we had a dsicussion about it, longer than what I had wanted, and it did make me think what this places' opinion was. Out of all the forums I go to, which is not very much anymore, this one has the most thought-stimulating discussions.

Since when is four hours not enough? :P I get tired at midnight; I no longer know what I'm posting haha. But you're right, I didn't.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Junkhead]

Of course a "self" exists. Why did you even make this question?

[Celice]

It was an odd start, no doubt about that. A friend of mine posted a link to what Obama has "actually" done, to combat the conservatives that are my age and go to our school. And, so, another person (I didn't know at all) posted what he thought was the reason politicians are not trustworthy, et cetera, and he said that we don't exist. He said that Descartes idea of having thoughts, therefore self, is a crappy argument all around, due to thoughts "popping up without a self involved." At first I ignored this, my friend and I also joked with him a little bit too. I posted a video from TheAmazingAtheist on Youtube about individualism, and he stated again the we did not exist (because I thought he was joking at first). Well, to make a longer story short, we had a dsicussion about it, longer than what I had wanted, and it did make me think what this places' opinion was. Out of all the forums I go to, which is not very much anymore, this one has the most thought-stimulating discussions.

Since when is four hours not enough? :P I get tired at midnight; I no longer know what I'm posting haha. But you're right, I didn't.

Ah, that's what I was alluding to, maybe. We can feel that we exist, and can validate ourselves through observance, rationality, experimentation, and reactivity, but in the end it's only an assumption, and nothing can be verified.

I think the question comes, which is more important, as far as lifely-concerns are, is, Does it matter whether a self exists or not? What if our validation is false and we wrongly assume we exist based on such self-evident qualities? Does it really change anything? It's a but like arguing for or against a creator--in the end, does it actually change anything about your functional life, aside from what you decide to make of that revelation.

[Crystal Shards]

Of course a "self" exists. Why did you even make this question?

What's your definition of self that it seems such an obvious question?

[Nanami Touko]

I think the question comes, which is more important, as far as lifely-concerns are, is, Does it matter whether a self exists or not? What if our validation is false and we wrongly assume we exist based on such self-evident qualities? Does it really change anything? It's a but like arguing for or against a creator--in the end, does it actually change anything about your functional life, aside from what you decide to make of that revelation.

Ya know, I've never thought about this, really, but, you're right. Nothing would change. If we don't truly exist and are only here because we have a false belief of existing... then we just keep on going with said belief, and the world continues spinning.

I guess this is kinda why I don't join into these kinds of discussion often, because they're just asking "why?; what?" when the answer to said why/what won't really change much. I dunno. Maybe I'm being silly.

[Zanarkin]

If i don't exist, if i don't have a self, what causes my thought? What causes my experiences? What creates this discussion within my mind that i'm looking at right now and responding to? Its kind of hard to put into context if you don't exist, i mean, if reality is nothing, then why is there something here, and if i'm nothing as well, why do i make sense of that something? How can I if i don't exist? I find Decartes words, "I think therefore I am," to be true. If you can think, then you exist in one way or another. You have a self. I do not know if what i'm responding to is real, maybe its something i made up. Maybe the world in which i live in is the product of my imagination, maybe my body is also part of my imagination, but my conscience, what tells me that i have a self, definately exist and is the only thing true to me. If a self does not exists, what makes these thoughts?

Wow my grammar gets worst and worst each year

Edited June 17, 2011 by Jhen Mohran

[Original Alear]

Phoenix I am not really going to be disagreeing with you, but you seem to want people's personal beliefs. Even if self is all that exists, I am not sure what that changes. Let me fire away on this subject.

Celice brings up Descartes. I think he makes an excellent point, and while I don't feel the need to question him, I wanted to say I thought what he said made a great deal of sense to me, as a solipsist (certain of self, doubting others existence).

If one is a solipsist, and one believes that everything but oneself is illusion, then the question becomes, what does one DO about that? If everything else is the projection of something else, either yourself or something higher, do you ignore that and live for your self simply because something higher has put walls separating you from others?

I think that, at a certain point in one's life, there comes a time when a human being has to look into their heart and decide whether to put themselves first and others second, others first and themselves second, or to stop making the distinction on a general level and just go with their gut depending on circumstance. So, self definitely exists. But sacrificing self unconditionally - revealing everything private, even when people don't want to hear it - allows you to put your self in perspective, to the point of literally becoming unable to distinguish between self and others. At that point, one can start putting oneself on the line for any reason at all in order to get what you want. And it's at that point that we are most potently able to rededicate our lives to something better than ourselves.

I am thinking about peace between people at war as something to dedicate myself to. Maybe israel-palestine conflict. But first, international volunteer work somewhere, I hope. Could do America but I don't want to be somewhere with english as 1st language if possible. All I know is, really don't want to live where I am now, even though it would be comfortable to do so. (mass transit, family, etc.) The grim truth comes out.....how can I change instead of stay the same, when I'm accepting of everything and nothing? Keep talking until I stop accepting and start rejecting on the basis of something besides a whim.

What do I reject with less than a whim? Not always, but often:

-Suicide

-Murder (always if we use the technical definition, which tends to exclude "good" killing.)

+I am against "good" killing but don't deny others the right to engage in it.

-Rape (always, but mercy towards rapists if they don't need to be killed to save the victim)

-Pro-life. I believe it's always the pregnant woman's right to choose, though I do believe that life begins in the womb.

So, I think the only thing I am unequivocally against is rape, off the top of my head, but I believe that certain kinds of murder, for example, are worse than rape.

Edited June 17, 2011 by SeverIan

[Fire Emblem Addict]

I think Kierkegaard (not sure on this) refuted Descartes' claim by pointint out that Descartes presupposes the existence of "I" when he uses the phrase "I think". Therefore, all Descartes is doing is trying to prove a postulate that he implicitly made at the start of his argument (or something to that effect, been a while since I've learned this stuff).

Edited June 17, 2011 by Fire Emblem Addict

[Phoenix Wright]

I think Kierkegaard (not sure on this) refuted Descartes' claim by pointint out that Descartes presupposes the existence of "I" when he uses the phrase "I think". Therefore, all Descartes is doing is trying to prove a postulate that he implicitly made at the start of his argument (or something to that effect, been a while since I've learned this stuff).

My friend at school reads Kierkegaard, I never have. Does Kierkegaard believe the opposite of Descartes, or just that his presupposition may be wrong? This particular friend believes in a self, which is why I'm asking.

As for my opinion on that specific point, I disagree with K. I don't think there's anything wrong with the statement I think. To me, the I is clearly real, but that's just me.

@Celice: That's an interesting way of looking at it. I was going to ask the same question, but for some reason I decided not to--I can't even remember why.

@Severlan: I hope you aid in the eventual success, too. Are you involved in anything currently, like Rotary International or something?

Edited June 18, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Fire Emblem Addict]

basically K is breaking Descartes argument into:

1. Something thinks

2. I am that something

3. Therefore I think

4. Therefore I am

[Celice]

Is that actually what Descartes supposed, though? I forget where I read mine from, but my recollection is that Descartes was trying to see if anything was actually able to withstand being refuted. It came down to everything could be an illusion, except for the doubt. It's not so much that I think I am, but that, A feeling is evident, and I can't say it is not.

It's like the underlying floor beneath the feet--you always feel you are on it, and you never feel as if you never are on it. The doubt is that bottom floor, where even if you can doubt, the doubt itself doesn't seem to be able to be dissipated.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Really? There are some funtions which we can call beneficial to understand and operate under, but I don't think there are any assumptions we have to understand and operate under. Unless you have any good examples?

Sorry, that was actually terrible word choice on my part. I basically meant what you said: operating under certain assumptions makes life significantly more manageable and exploitable, but it would definitely be wrong to say some are absolutely necessary.

Anyway, to clarify, I believe in self to the extent that I believe I exist. I don't believe in souls or anything beyond that I simply exist, and I don't necessarilly believe in free will, but, for me at least, my particular biology and set of experiences and influences creates something that, even if it's no more than a biological machine, constitutes self.

[Fire Emblem Addict]

To use the word "I" in I think already assumes that "I" exists. Therefore, I think K is saying that there needs to be evidence to justify that it is "I" that is doing the thinking.

[Zanarkin]

Where does thought come from? Why do i receive the thoughts? Even if its not me doing the thinking, I am receiving them. I'm also making sense of them, or atleast what appears to be me making sense of them. If he didn't assumed that "I" is doing the thinking, what could possibly do it? It doesn't matter anyway because "I" is still receiving them, therefore "I" exist because I'm being sent these thoughts. If i didn't exists then why I'm i getting these thoughts?

Doubting self existance seem a bit hard to do. I mean if you don't exist, why do you see/smell/taste/feel/have experiences? Why do you think or acquire these thoughts (in the case you are not making them)?

Edited June 18, 2011 by Jhen Mohran

[Celice]

If you didn't have any of our sensations, would we still exist? If we could not sense the world around us, does that mean we do not exist? Rationally we would tell ourselves of course not. But rationality is only a few hairs away from complete irrationality.

To use the word "I" in I think already assumes that "I" exists. Therefore, I think K is saying that there needs to be evidence to justify that it is "I" that is doing the thinking.

I can use the word 'I' all I want not assume that an 'I' exists. I may just be a receptacle--I may not be. But often whatever my current feelings tend to be I don't record them as existing. I simply somehow am feeling.

I do not think the designation of self necessarily means an existence of self. It's simply a reference, and a tool of language more than anything. Conditional, not explanatory.

To go back on the above poster's suggestion, that somehow our feelings and senses validate an existence... memories, sensations, and feelings, can be abruptly created on a decision, as also they can be lost. Memories are often fabricated, if nor moreso, than naturally and objectively recorded. Smells we sense do not necessarily exist. Depending on our senses to validate our existence is essentially depending on our moods and ourselves to validate--a self-validating mechanism. There's an intrinsic bias in that that doesn't wholly support an objective observation, we know. Whatever 'we' means :P

Edited June 19, 2011 by Celice

[Zanarkin]

To go back on the above poster's suggestion, that somehow our feelings and senses validate an existence... memories, sensations, and feelings, can be abruptly created on a decision, as also they can be lost. Memories are often fabricated, if nor moreso, than naturally and objectively recorded. Smells we sense do not necessarily exist. Depending on our senses to validate our existence is essentially depending on our moods and ourselves to validate--a self-validating mechanism. There's an intrinsic bias in that that doesn't wholly support an objective observation, we know. Whatever 'we' means :P

Even if the senses do not exist, something must be making them up. What is that something? Well, I'm the recepient of these made up things right? I can't say whether that something exist or not, but me receiving these made up things means I exist, because well either its me that its making these stuff up, or the thing making them up is sending them to me and that thing must know i exist, why would he send it to something non-existant? But wait, what if that something doesn't exist? Then it must be me making it up and it would still mean i exist.

(I'm getting sort of confused... but basically what I'm saying is: There are experiences --> If they are fake, one way or another, they are made --> What makes them and why do I interpret them? --> logically i'd say me/or some other thing beyond my knowledge makes them --> If its me then i must exist and thats why i can interpret them, if its something else then that thing knows i exist and sends them to me. --> If that thing does not exist, and there is no way to know, then its me that is making these thoughts, and therefore I exist. If i did not then how could these thoughts be crated [and we go again to where we began... what a vicious cycle]. I felt the parragraph was a bit confusing for me so i needed to organize it. )

If you didn't have any of our sensations, would we still exist? If we could not sense the world around us, does that mean we do not exist? Rationally we would tell ourselves of course not. But rationality is only a few hairs away from complete irrationality.

If i did not think or knew that i was thinking, then there'd be no way for me to say that i existed. There'd be no way for me alone to validate my existance.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Jhen Mohran