Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by water, Dec 2, 2005.
my self, i am the centre of the universe.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You're just jealous. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If it makes it easier for you to think so, then by all means do.
It is often the wont of those who haven't made self-analysis an art form (or an addiction) to disparage those who have, and in doing so find companionship.
Which is, after all, the primary desire of the majority posting here.
You think too much.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's a rather subjective judgement, wouldn't you say?
I could as easily say you don't think enough.
is this why you disparage people, to find companionship?
No, I do that because I don't like the majority of them.
But that is not what I said.
no i know, but you made the connection and i asked if this was your motivation for disparaging people.
does this make you feel better about your self or does it make you feel better about those people you dont like?
It actually doesn't make me feel anything much at all. It comes naturally. And those who come here for companionship on one level or another are not confined to those who disparage others.
Now, is this topic about me, or about the "Self" as a more general idea(l)? If you're intending making it about me, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to charge you for the privilege. I'm quite willing to give you a Paypal acount, and then you may ask of me anything you wish, and rest assured I will answer in kind. Shall we discuss rates?
Who or what is the I that says this
considering that the definition of the self according to this I is as follows:
If the self is an exponential interpretation of experience (and doesn't exist apart from it), then how meaningful are statements like "I don't like the majority of them."?
If the self is an exponential interpretation of experience, then, upon meeting others and communicating with them, it is two exponential interpretations of experience communicating.
How seriously or not seriously are then likes and dislikes to be taken?
The "self" is whatever imagined this question, thought there is an answer to it, and moved to ask it.
You could look at that in one of two ways.
On a strictly philosophical level, they aren't to be taken strictly at all. Those same likes and dislikes (and reactions to meeting others, of course) are merely the result of prior experience, nothing more. Incredibly complicated and involved, but nonetheless a set of experiences and programmed responses interacting with another. Intelligence factors quite strongly in the matter, of course. One set of responses may be more thoroughly thought through than another, but quite simply it is next to impossible to completely escape that programmed response.
On a personal level, most will never determine why they respond to a situation or line of thought in the way they do. This is where the response becomes more personal, more primal. Thus, the level of importance of the response or the inspiration is determined largely by intelligence - or more accurately how much intelligence has been brought to bear on self-examination.
To one who has delved deeply into the self, the importance of any interaction becomes less once the motivation is percieved, leading to a kind of paralysis which is often (mis)interpreted as apathy (and a trap lies there for the unwary). To those, the immediate response, born of those likes, dislikes and attitudes you mentioned, is often of far more interest than that which might have provoked it.
A fancy way of answering a question which defined nothing at all.
Why do you think it is next to impossible to completely escape that programmed response?
Another thing that comes to mind is -- when we're trying to re-program ourselves, we are still programming ourselves.
Whence that interest? What does that interest try to achieve?
Exactly. It was a self-conscious question. It's not what was asked that is significant, but that it asked. It would be equally sensible or senseless to simply ask "what is the question?" and expect a response that would satisfy it.
Questions like this don't want answers, they want satisfaction. They are born of discontentment rather than curiosity; the answer must satisfy a living being, not a set of criteria.
Why do people interpret the same experiences differently? For isntance, twins develop different personalities and self-perceptions long before they are exposed to significantly different experiences.
Hardly. There are many people who praise the "self" highly, and say how this "self" must be loved and appreciated and how it is unique and worthy and so on. So I wondered what those people mean when they say "self". And so far, they have stayed away from stating a definition of "self".
The self is the little 'I am'.
God is the great 'I am'
It is hard to say what is a *significantly* different experience. Chaos theory, for example, discovered that even very small differences in original conditions lead to a very different result. The fact that one of the twins was born first might suffice to start a chain of differences.
Exactly, so to bind experience to "self" is about as useful as to bind self to "experience".
Those statements by themselves mean nothing. It's about as useful as the golden rule, without a frame of reference to guide it. A deranged psychopath can love himself as supremely as the most selfless person on earth, and it would say nothing about their respecive "worth".
That they are "unique" says just as little. They might be the same in many ways, and completely different in many other ways. One difference is enough to make someone unique, and one difference is not enough to make someone different. While we may honour all people, as "human", we might not respect all humans as fathers.
What do you think is the difference between someone who has no concept of self, and someone who has a very specific concept, which he loves dearly? Does it make a difference to who they are - known or or unknown to themselves?
Separate names with a comma.