What is the self?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by water, Dec 2, 2005.

  1. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    How can they be "not you"? How can one be "more true" as in the blanket " self" than the other? As far as I'm concerned, they're all you, or all me - whichever the case may be. Which one you choose to be "true" is the one that satisifies what you think you value I'd suppose.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Then I/you have many selves, or have a multple personality disorder ...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Why?

    You can count yourself as many times as you'd like. I'm only counting me once.

    For me, it's all the same voice contemplating different angles.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Non-Logical-Idea-Guy Fat people can't smile. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,002
    the spirit and thought that is contained in your body
     
  8. beyondtimeandspace Everlasting Student Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    Which of these references to the self, made all the time, by all kinds of different people, holds to the true meaning of self the closest?



    9 year old billy just banged his knee on a bench. He begins to cry and calls out, "mommy! I hurt myself!"

    60 year old Mr. McIntyre, amidst teaching his class many other things, said, "and as you can see here, just as your cat does at home, this full-grown lion cleans itself."

    Mary, of 26, upon seeing her best friend, Tess, in such angst over her major decision proclaimed, "you don't have to fight yourself over this! You have friends who are willing to help."

    After reading the daily newspaper, business and economics reports, and various other articles of varying importance, Mayor Johnson stood up, walked to his office window, and, to his secretary standing behind him near the door, he said, "It's wonderful. Despite the past few months of unprecendented disaster, most particularly this recent forest fire, this town still, like a colony of ants, works on to rebuild itself to its old glory."

    Teenager Tony, after his geography class, tried to explain the water cycle of the Earth to his friends, "you see, the Earth itself is like one great big filtration system."
     
  9. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Sure. But what is your identity?

    These different angles represent different values. While for yourself, you'd say you hold a specific set of values, wouldn't you?

    So, for example, if you value your teeth and your health, you won't eat much sugar and drink energy drinks (contain bad acids). But you value your enjoyment also, don't you? So you'll eat sweets and drink funky stuff.
    So you have clashing values, are acting on opposing intentions.

    So. Which values represent your *identity*?
     
  10. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    By what criteria do you differentiate between the spirit, the thought, and the body?
     
  11. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    What emerges from the process of making decisions about conflicting desires is what we call character. Existentialists would call this your identity - "you are the sum of your decisions" - and say that your personality is the synergistic inevitability of this sum. But our decisions aren't only influenced by the apparent, it's also influenced by the non-apparent, the "numinous".
     
  12. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Only if you apply the definition of "self" to these "voices", in which case you have already decided what the self is. Have you?
     
  13. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Who is "we"?


    And considering this, it follows that ...?
    List some implications that the bolded statement has for the self.
     
  14. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    1. Please define what you mean by "self", and make a non-pro-definition. That is, don't state "The self is that which asked this question ...".

    2. When we have made a decision, one of the voices prevailed, or only one of the voices is deemed ultimately right (deemed right by the person in question). Why not consider this voice the self?
     
  15. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    My identity? Not sure specifically what you're asking, as the term can be taken in a number of ways... thus I'd say my identity is context specific. Specify the context and I can specify the identity you're asking about. All of those comprise self.

    Hmm. Not sure about that, maybe you're right. I can't think of a good example of conflicting thoughts to analyze each representative in terms of if it is "value" or not. I suppose just generally thinking about it it would seem it could be represented that way. Are ideas necessarily representative of "value", or are they fodder for a resultant that we'd think of as value?

    Maybe, but I have to say again what I value is context specific. I value different things more or less at different times depending on state of me at the time.

    I do value my teeth, but when I'm thirsty I value sweet drinks. I generally take my teeth for granted, which is not necessarily the most wise decision to be able to keep them over time - but until I learn not to value sweet drinks or things that could hurt my teeth, I'll just have to live with potentially bad teeth.

    Right. You beat me to it I see. Pardon.

    But as I said, each value comes to mind as "requiring action" based on the context of the moment.

    Both.
     
  16. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    Is this one of those threads, based on the Socratic method, where questions are asked until the questioner manages to make someone fall into a logical blunder that justifies his/her own opinions on the matter?


    If it is then I answer:

    I am ....water: A flowing, ever changing, non-specific, churning unity of ambiguity, wanting to find the big, warm sea and lose itself there in the infinite wave.

    And in that water my consciousness swims, trying to remain afloat, and to swim to some shore.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2005
  17. stretched a junkie's broken promise Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,244
    I said to myself ... "self", you`ve got to get yourself together.
     
  18. ellion Magician & Exorcist (93) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    "your gonna make me give myself a good talkin too"

    Bob dylan
    your gonna make me lonesome when you go.
     
  19. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    It seems so.

    At least one implication is that one -- "we" in general -- can't give you a definition of self that would satisfy you. All of us have a similar interaction with the "self" that we share as members of the same species, and "we" are also just trying to interpret and observe and ask ourselves the same questions. One observation that has been made is that we don't just run into this thick wall called experience like blind men. We, people, can come to an understanding of ourselves (and others) that transcends our nature. Apparently.

    Don't you see that you're asking yourself into a corner? Let me rephrase your question a little: "Please give me a definition of 'self' that will satisfy me on terms you have defined, but I must have approved". But you only demonstrate my statement with your counter-questions: that there is something that "pushes back". You continuously imply that you do have a self-concept that isn't elusive, an image that would recognize its reflection. That's the only reason you can go on asking. Your questions assert a strong opinion that becomes more and more defined with every opinion you shoot down, only it seems you want someone else -- "us" -- to voice it.
    Why not, indeed. Some people certainly allow themselves to be led by their strongest desires. But voices don't only speak in parallel, all with an equal amount of authority. There is a "voice" for the future, a "voice" for the past, a "voice" for every possible perspective. There are also the voices of doubt and conscience, which can veto the prevailing voice. But you are not your past, or your conscience, or your doubt, or any one of the aspects that allow reflection. We only call them "voices" because the information each perspective contributes can be processed just as concretely as if they came from another person. And just like we do with other people, we can learn to trust some perspectives and distrust others; ignore the self-important ones and wait to hear the seemingly insignificant voices. And just like other people, we can come to be known for our restraint or lack of it, for our wisdom or our foolishness. The self can be loved and nurtured, disciplined to death, or allowed to do whatever it likes.

    The ability to observe ourselves -- our "selves" -- is what allows us to shape an identity, to conform it to one image or another. And other people may see us at work on ourselves, see who we are modelling ourselves to. All this points to a spiritual dimension where a person can draw models from, what Plato and Freud called archetypes. When someone imposes his beliefs on his physical existence, he will start reflecting the image he has of himself. If someone gives himself over to external pressures, he will become the product of them. The spirit is what "pushes back" against all these forces to allow a "me" to exist.
     
  20. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Wes,


    What's the point of speaking of your identity then, if it is context dependent? If it's context dependent, then it isn't actually an identity.

    I'd say that it is crucial for identity that it is independent of context.


    I think we each connect a particular value to a particular idea; these connections are not the same for all people, of course, but we can say that the principle is the same.
    So if you act on an idea, this manifests your intention and your intention is coming directly from what you value.

    However, there is a thing to say about ignorance about one's values, and about poorly formed values.
    Namely, just because someone does something, this doesn't necessarily reflect their values accurately. With many of the things we do, we are actually running on autopilot -- thus not really knowing what we're doing while we're doing it. So that kind of acting poses a great problem for understanding identity, the self.


    What about Maslow's pyramid of values? In your life, can you observe that principle -- that there are some things which always have priority?


    I understand how it appears so, but. Say, you find that you're a bit tired and hungry. What do you do?


    Then you have a clash. It's not rational to value mutually exclusive things.


    * * *


    Satyr,


    I agree with the part about the Socratic method, and I hope people posting here are aware of it too.

    I don't agree with the part about that potential logical blunder justifying my own opinions on the matter. I'm not sure what will come out, and my opinion on the matter is not yet fully formulated, it is still being worked on.


    That I am flowing, ever-changing, non-specific, churning unity of ambiguity applies, but that I am out to find a warm sea and lose myself there in the infinite wave doesn't apply.
    You got carried away by the metaphor, literally.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    But who is to say they're mutually exclusive? As rational beings, we are often walking paradoxes. Sometimes it amounts to hypocrisy, but mostly it requires us to evaluate the long-term effects and balance things out accordingly. Wes can enjoy a certain amount of sweet drinks without permanent damage. He could make up for it by brushing his teeth often and exercising regularly. Or he could adjust how much he values his health, like someone who smokes regularly, and decide to be content with the consequences. We make the same decisions at different levels all our lives, with different variables and values working in on them. Like when someone always eats healthy but doesn't exercize regularly. It's a lifestyle decision.
     
  22. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Aren't you talking about the persistence of identity - resilience? What remains the same and what changes? Being able to make consistent context-dependent decisions allows a person to experience himself from different angles, to get to know his context-independent self and its limits. So when confronted with a foreign context or new experience, you will draw from your established identity and external beliefs until you're more familiar with it, can adapt to it, and assimilate it.

    A possible application: how long must a person remain in a foreign country, say England, before he becomes an Englishman?

    I think identity is closely linked with one's source and destination. Some identifications are context-dependent, and others are context-independent. To borrow from Light's definition: there may be many tributaries, with different names, but all become part of a single river. What makes one river distinct from another, what identifies it, is what it is called at the lowest level, from where it flows into the ocean.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2005
  23. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Jenyar,


    Depending on what you assume about someone. If you want to paint them black, then you'll find something about them that will be your big cannister of black colour.

    A simple introduction to informal logic instructs that we be well-meaning in interpreting what other people have said; to make such implications that support the logicality of another's statements.
    It is not said that we must first think the other person is messing with us.


    Why not? If it's logical, and if I strive to be logical, then such a definition should be possible.


    What is "our nature"?


    Ah. This is *the* underlying problem of all definitions!

    See, an "apple" can be defined as

    '(a tree with) a round fruit with firm juicy flesh and a thin (green, red or yellow) skin' (Oxford Student's Dictionary),

    or as

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    or as

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    or

    by pointing at a certain thing on your table (suppose you have a thing called "apple" there) and saying "This!",

    and probably some other way as well.
    The question remains which defnition is adequate (and preferrably context independent).


    And what makes you think I am asking myself into a corner? Maybe I am asking myself out of a messy topic.


    How come we can choose and evaluate?
     

Share This Page