"Self"

[Crystal Shards]

Existence can still be an illusion. Usually the problem I have with self is that it presupposes a distinct separation from that which is around me. I am not as separate from my environment as many--including myself--would think, which to me calls into question the idea of self. In order for me to HAVE a self, it seems, I have to be able to have experiences. I can't do that if I'm completely separate from that which is around me. So I question self as being a given. To me it seems more an effect from our minds' ability to separate things into categories and less a given Truth about the universe.

[Junkhead]

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

It's just common sense.

[Original Alear]

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).

I think philosophers besides Kierkegaard have reworded/refuted Descartes's claim. I'm not entirely sure Kierkegaard was the first. However, I never studied Descartes's critics seriously in an academic setting.

One of the things I found most interested were Kierkegaard's statements on dread, which I read from The Outsider, one of Richard Wright's most critically panned books. Essentially, he says that "dread", as opposed to mere fear, is something you find intoxicating. Within the book, Wright's protagonist, a sort of inversion of Bigger Thomas (extremely intelligent, well-read, etc) commits atrocities, but mostly against leaders of political factions in NYC who are trying to keep themselves in control. In the end, however, he destroys the things he loves and drives himself into the arms of the law gladly.

(I don't think it's a very good book, but I think it was panned because Wright had split very hard from american communist orthodoxy. Hanesberry, who you may remember as the author of A Raisin in the Sun, criticized it, and I think she did it because A: she didn't like ugly/horrifying things, and The Outsider is very horrifying and B: she was a member of the communist party and was "obliged" to pan it as in a different faction than hers. I haven't read Raisin but assume it is a worthwhile read.)

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

Trying to write book, organize my favorite board game, find something explicitly and implicitly neutral but active in the Israel/Palestine conflict to loan my support to, and have fun!

I am trying to avoid promising enterprises in fields I am already entrenched in, such as law.

[Celice]

Usually the problem I have with self is that it presupposes a distinct separation from that which is around me.

I don't think it presupposes a separation. What a Self is meant to symbolize is the particular environment of an individual viewer. Connected or not, this self-winded vision observes and criticizes its environment and self. There's no real distinction between nature and meta-nature--as much as it's just a way of setting flags in a snowstorm, to make it easier to understand what one is referring to.

It's the user of the language which confloggles the entire bit. A misunderstanding creates the issue of designating difference where no really was in the first place :o

I am not as separate from my environment as many--including myself--would think, which to me calls into question the idea of self. In order for me to HAVE a self, it seems, I have to be able to have experiences. I can't do that if I'm completely separate from that which is around me. So I question self as being a given. To me it seems more an effect from our minds' ability to separate things into categories and less a given Truth about the universe.

Well, the idea of self again is not difference, but the unique view we are all subject to. You don't say Self in rebellion to existence--you're just as much chaotic mess as everything else we can believe or objectively claim to exist. Just as absurd, pointless, and in the end, horrifying. But--our ability to store, retrieve, and analyze the information, of awareness of self-awareness, is slanted by our environment. This is largely where the self comes from, as in relation to objects outside of us, not everything has the same boundaries of existence as either of us. Even between the human species, the simple lack of taste creates huge gaps in the attempt to rectify a similar existence between one another--let alone to create similar selves out of two entirely different beings. The experiences which are to be experienced will not be the same, and this, along with the self-conscious aspect, is what carves that sense of self-identity. Largely it is these recordings, slanted and all, which fashion our unique selves as well.

(also, I dearly wish no one says the self is a response to perceived or real existence. To say that desires and expects an intrinsic interest in that function--and once you do that, you've put yourself into a hole of self-justifying crap, the likes of, Who holds up the World? Atlas. Who holds up Atlas? A turtle. Who holds up the turtle? It's turtles all the way down!)

Edited June 19, 2011 by Celice

[Crystal Shards]

If the Self isn't separate from its environment, then what is it? I mean there's no point in saying I'm me unless I mean something by it. Of course it's a separation between you and the environment. That's what self is.

[Original Alear]

If the Self isn't separate from its environment, then what is it? I mean there's no point in saying I'm me unless I mean something by it. Of course it's a separation between you and the environment. That's what self is.

Oh? Why define it in those terms?

Leibniz, who wrote philosophy and constructed one of the two most recognized forms of calculus, said that each individual piece of the universe reflects the universe (or, in the monadology, something very close to that). The self is constructed from such pieces. How could it be that the self could be separated from the environment, were it constructed from pieces that reflect the universe? How could it be? How could anything be if that were true?

How?

Consider this. Our genes are affected by our environment (for instance, radiation damages our genes in any number of ways). Our five senses are affected by our environment. Our family trees are affected by the environment. Our expectations of the future, which shape into plans to shape the future as we will it, are shaped by the environment.

What is left to us that is unaffected by the environment?

Note that I believe in a self. But I would like to see your answer first.

Edited June 20, 2011 by SeverIan

[Celice]

If the Self isn't separate from its environment, then what is it? I mean there's no point in saying I'm me unless I mean something by it. Of course it's a separation between you and the environment. That's what self is.

Along with Severlan's response, again, Self is a designation and reference. It's not a statement of separation, anymore than designating a difference between flowers and atoms. It's simply categorization. (not that this defends the idea of categorization in any way--in fact, this is where most human error occurs; just look at all the evolutionists who wrongly assume evolution is an act of purpose and intent)

We don't say we're alienating Nature when we speak of Nature. No more are we alienating Self when we speak of Self. It's perspective in order.

Consider this. Our genes are affected by our environment (for instance, radiation damages our genes in any number of ways). Our five senses are affected by our environment. Our family trees are affected by the environment. Our expectations of the future, which shape into plans to shape the future as we will it, are shaped by the environment.

And this is why anyone who proclaims themselves Athiestic is at a bit of a dead end, since their sensations are pretty much their only method of understanding the world around them. And simply because you can't perceive something, doesn't mean it does not exist. To come out-right and say I Don't Believe is essentially acting on an intense stance of faith, just as much as religion does. Meanwhile, the Agnostic approach simply says, It May or May Not.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Celice

[Original Alear]

Besides the following, Celice basically JAN'd everything I wanted to say regarding the self/other distinction, though he also has some additional material. But I am happy to articulate it in my own words, later in this thread, if it seems useful to do so.

And this is why anyone who proclaims themselves Athiestic is at a bit of a dead end, since their sensations are pretty much their only method of understanding the world around them.

I think someone can range towards very strongly atheistic agnosticism, i.e. believing all signs point to no, and still be fine. And generally, such people that I meet who fall into this category call themselves atheists, even if they have no belief one way or another regarding god. But it is a fairly refined, and fairly uncommon, viewpoint to be found stated explicitly in my experience.

One reason why I considered myself a "nontheist" at one point, and will likely do so again, is that, in the realm of practicality, I find these discussions tiresome. But, when one feels alienated a great deal from practicality, these discussions can be heartening.

[Aleph]

I think we were going in a much more productive direction when we realized we can't answer whether or not a self exists until we know what the hell one even is.

This same perspective sort of destroys solipsism, not by invalidating it, but by making it moot for the same reason that the existence of a self or of a god or gods would be moot, as Celice has pointed out: knowing the answer to these questions, what are we then capable of that we weren't before? In mathematics you can resolve equations to various states such that the capability of whatever input you're missing is always apparent; we don't even have something like that. What good is the x if there's no y =?

It's turtles all the way down!

which way is down

Anyway, unlike TRENTON I don't get bored with these sorts of conversations because of the same reason a nihilist wouldn't become bored of anything else: it's something to do.

Pointing out how pointless this discussion is is pointless

Edited June 20, 2011 by Obviam

[Junkhead]

I just wonder why people want to complicate themselves analizing things that shouldn't be in human knowledge for their own good. Sometimes ignorance can be a blessing, and this is one of those cases.

[Crystal Shards]

Oh? Why define it in those terms?

Leibniz, who wrote philosophy and constructed one of the two most recognized forms of calculus, said that each individual piece of the universe reflects the universe (or, in the monadology, something very close to that). The self is constructed from such pieces. How could it be that the self could be separated from the environment, were it constructed from pieces that reflect the universe? How could it be? How could anything be if that were true?

How?

Consider this. Our genes are affected by our environment (for instance, radiation damages our genes in any number of ways). Our five senses are affected by our environment. Our family trees are affected by the environment. Our expectations of the future, which shape into plans to shape the future as we will it, are shaped by the environment.

What is left to us that is unaffected by the environment?

Note that I believe in a self. But I would like to see your answer first.

What you and Celice just said is exactly why I don't believe in a self. It's a method for categorization, which, by the way, is a method for separating things. That doesn't mean anything within that category exists. I can categorize all I want but it doesn't end up doing anything unless I can do something with it. A self is only as useful as the extent to which someone makes use of it. I don't believe in one, therefore it's useless to me. Does that mean I don't ever use the notion of self? No. It's one of those things that occurs naturally, thanks to categorization. Whenever I notice I am not a part of the couch I am sitting on, I am utilizing self. Whenever I notice I am not my boyfriend, I am utilizing self. I don't find it particularly useful to notice that though, in most cases, and I think the idea that many have that the self is some unchanging force is ridiculous.

I don't know if any of that makes sense, because like I mentioned before and like Obviam just mentioned, I don't think any of us have a working definition.

Also atheists don't believe in God. I don't see what that has to do with being a part of an environment. Atheism is not saying I believe there is no God. It's saying I don't believe in God. It's an important distinction, one that doesn't require "faith." But, while that is a sore spot for me because it's a highly misunderstood aspect of atheism, that is completely off topic.

[Original Alear]

I think we were going in a much more productive direction when we realized we can't answer whether or not a self exists until we know what the hell one even is.

I think it is time to begin discussing "productive" and "we realized" if you really want to run with THAT.

In mathematics you can resolve equations to various states such that the capability of whatever input you're missing is always apparent; we don't even have something like that. What good is the x if there's no y =?

It is good to see you as a mathemetician type of guy realize that...some math people seem to think that economics got the dependent/independent axes on the supply and demand graph wrong, not realizing that the question of dependency of those two is still unresolved in economics, and most would admit interdependency on some level.

Now, I never read Marshall, and don't remember where he was on that argument, so it's possible HE did mess up. I have seen brilliant economists make really stupid mistakes, so stupid I can't tell if they are intentional or not.

What does this have to do with the self/unself argument? It would be relatively accurate, I think, to say that Marshall lost his sense of self if he had an opinion on whether supply drives demand or vice versa and failed to express that in his curves, though not certain, because one never really knows what the self of a person wants.

I just wonder why people want to complicate themselves analizing things that shouldn't be in human knowledge for their own good. Sometimes ignorance can be a blessing, and this is one of those cases.

Eh, it depends on your context. If you're complex enough, you may limit your attention span, but allow yourself to act quite excellently in many situations.

(I don't bother trying to act excellently on Serenes Forest anymore, everyone here seems grown up enough.)

Crystal's perspective on self is again, better than the one I would confusedly attempt to express. I will contend a minor point.

It's a method for categorization, which, by the way, is a method for separating things.

If one holds enough methods for categorization and then begins to compare them, one begins to realize that, in attempting to separate, they actually combine in a complex interplay. Thus, regardless of the intent of the one drawing up categories, the effect of categorization can be to unify, not separate, things.

Moreover I am quite sure that some of those who draw up categories and appear to be separating things have unification on their minds.

Everything contains the seeds of its own destruction, and in creation of a new thing all the old things are reborn (see Hegelian dialectic, though I am more familiar with Marxian dialectic and, ultimately, am not very familiar with either). Not to say that destruction is the only thing worth doing.

Edited June 21, 2011 by SeverIan

[Crystal Shards]

If one holds enough methods for categorization and then begins to compare them, one begins to realize that, in attempting to separate, they actually combine in a complex interplay. Thus, regardless of the intent of the one drawing up categories, the effect of categorization can be to unify, not separate, things.

Moreover I am quite sure that some of those who draw up categories and appear to be separating things have unification on their minds.

Everything contains the seeds of its own destruction, and in creation of a new thing all the old things are reborn (see Hegelian dialectic, though I am more familiar with Marxian dialectic and, ultimately, am not very familiar with either). Not to say that destruction is the only thing worth doing.

I completely agree. Which is why I don't think a solid sense of self can exist. We identify ourselves using our environment; thus in attempting to explain ourselves as a separate entity, we are further engrossing ourselves into our environment. We deconstruct the very notion of a self as separate from everything ("I am me") when we engage in describing that self.

Also, selves change over time. We change from moment to moment: cells die and are born, our thoughts pass through us, our feelings change, our health changes, we eat and digest and all that fun stuff, we sweat, we cry, we sleep, who we talk to changes. There is no part of the self that remains constant. We can attempt to explain our selves, but it won't be the same as a year from now. It may not even be the same as five minutes from now. People generally like to think they stay consistent, but we don't. We change in all the ways I've mentioned and more. So I don't particularly find "selves" as a concept useful except in the most basic sense: I am not a part of this computer. I interact with it but I am separate from it. But even then, that can get complicated.

[Raven]

If I struggle a lifetime

What would my body be?

An empty shell

On what a demon fed!

Could be a heavy burden

To stay true to your words!

Speak up!

I wanna silence everything!

If I got no plan,

Doesn't mean that I get what I want for free.

If I got no meaning,

Would you force me to a place where I make sense,

'Cause nothing lasts forever...

How do I get home?

Everything revolves around me!

If I can't find myself?

It's so completely fake!

How do I get home?

Everything revolves around me!

If even you can't help?

Dark nights on my soul!

I deny failure!

I ignite!

Woe is on my misery,

She wins all their eyes!

Realize what defies our fate!

This is not me, this is me!

So if I struggle a lifetime

What good would that do?

If I got a plan

Doesn't have to stop the feeling inside.

If I do make sense,

Would you drag me down?

'Cause nothing lasts forever...

How do I get home?

Everything revolves around me!

If I can't find myself?

It's so completely fake!

How do I get home?

Everything revolves around me!

If even you can't help?

Dark nights on my soul!

I suppose I do believe in a "self", in the assumption that a "self" is each and every individual living thing. Even siamese twins, as long as each of the physically connected have their own brain.

[Life]

You guys are overthinking this one.

Self is individuality. The ability to think for one's self without mindlessly following the herd. This does not mean that you MUST act differently at all times, it just means that you have the ability to make the choice yourself of if you want to be different or not. Whether or not you are allowed to be different is another matter altogether but this is simply the mental choice of which path you want to follow rather than accepting your fate without a second thought and never being allowed to even consider any alternative deep within your brain.

It's not about existence. It's about individuality and what makes me different to the person beside me, even if we are identical twins.

[Crystal Shards]

You guys are overthinking this one.

Self is individuality. The ability to think for one's self without mindlessly following the herd. This does not mean that you MUST act differently at all times, it just means that you have the ability to make the choice yourself of if you want to be different or not. Whether or not you are allowed to be different is another matter altogether but this is simply the mental choice of which path you want to follow rather than accepting your fate without a second thought and never being allowed to even consider any alternative deep within your brain.

It's not about existence. It's about individuality and what makes me different to the person beside me, even if we are identical twins.

If that's the case, then the self is limited. Neuroscience has gone a long way in determining there's not as much free will going around as we'd like. Not to say we don't have ANY, but surely we don't have as much as we'd like to think.

, from a professor at my university.

[Original Alear]

Self is individuality. The ability to think for one's self without mindlessly following the herd.

Excellent. I can now, with my own experience, empirically disprove self, at least at times, in my own life.

There are times when, perfectly awake, my mind literally shuts off and I find myself going about activities without any awareness whatsoever. For instance, recently I found myself outside my house with my dog on a leash. I was admittedly aware of the fact that I had gone "through the paces" of putting on shoes, leash, etc but could not figure out why I had made this decision.

Perhaps my mind was to a limited extent aware of what was going on, since I did eventually "wake up" and start paying attention to what was going on, but there are other people (vegetables) who seem very likely to have lost even that.

So, should we dedicate all our time to making sure that every sleeping mind is awake, always? On the level we currently operate, I try and make sure everyone is kept awake except when they need to sleep.

I am still holding things behind my back, but I am sure all of you can see them quite clearly, and saw them clearly long before I did.

Edited June 22, 2011 by SeverIan

[Celice]

Further in this regard, what about individuals without any self-validity, who have no real evidence that they exist, have existed, or that anything they arrive or come with matters? They have no basic ground relative to contrast with, no sense of normalcy, no ability to relate between actual existence and non-existence--their life is essentially that mindless drivel because there's no proof of such a life at all. To themselves, there is no evidence of having acted before, their entire lives fall into that "pacing" of lesser awareness. And who then have the dilemma of asking themselves is it really "them" that is fearing or feeling something, or is it that constant dull pacing which seems to swallow existence and cover them, making it feel as if their duration of observation was muffled and blank? It sort of ties back in earlier when one was talking about the senses limiting an ability to perceive or establish a self. Is there an apparent desire to validate one's existence in order to first accept a sense of self to exist?

(And I had something earlier about Crystal Shards sense of self, but I thought it wasn't worth continuing since she seemed to only want to discuss self if it was a tool or useful. A limiting conversation when you've already established your boundaries :/ )

[Crystal Shards]

(And I had something earlier about Crystal Shards sense of self, but I thought it wasn't worth continuing since she seemed to only want to discuss self if it was a tool or useful. A limiting conversation when you've already established your boundaries :/ )

I said no such thing.

[Phoenix Wright]

Excellent. I can now, with my own experience, empirically disprove self, at least at times, in my own life.

There are times when, perfectly awake, my mind literally shuts off and I find myself going about activities without any awareness whatsoever. For instance, recently I found myself outside my house with my dog on a leash. I was admittedly aware of the fact that I had gone "through the paces" of putting on shoes, leash, etc but could not figure out why I had made this decision.

Perhaps my mind was to a limited extent aware of what was going on, since I did eventually "wake up" and start paying attention to what was going on, but there are other people (vegetables) who seem very likely to have lost even that.

So, should we dedicate all our time to making sure that every sleeping mind is awake, always? On the level we currently operate, I try and make sure everyone is kept awake except when they need to sleep.

I am still holding things behind my back, but I am sure all of you can see them quite clearly, and saw them clearly long before I did.

Normally we just call that a "habit," but I guess... :P

But in all seriousness, I don't think I've personally experienced before.