| || |
This is a discussion on The Self within the Critical Thinking & Philosophy forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; Originally Posted by Obsidean There can be no program, only the brain. What? Computers clearly run abstract programs. This does ...
Apparently, people shape themselves up according to the situations that they are in. But that isn't always usually the case, your talking about self right? Well lets look at it a different way, why does someone act a certain way around other people? And why does someone another way around themselves?
If i were to describe self, i would say that it has absolutely nothing to do with any outside forces like "God" because what would be the point in even shaping yourself up in a certain image if your always worried about the consequences?
You wont get anywhere if you keep yourself limited to only a certain way of thinking.
That is why in my opinion, people shape themselves up in different ways according to what the situation calls for, or what the person sees themselves as..
Then you have people who are clones, people who do exactly what everyone else does.
How can these people be any form or entity of self if they rarely ever think for themselves and only do what is shown to them and never try anything that they themselves would do?
To form a self, i believe you have to be daring and forward about it.
If you even consider something else, then that may be a change in your character or doubt in your own persona.
Its ok to admire other people, it may even be acceptable to aspire to be like them, but to actually want to BE them is like becoming a puppet with no dreams other then copying your messiah.
Exactly why im not into religion. While it is half true that without other people a person would not be whole, look at society now, even with all of us on this planet we are still not whole, and we are still detached from one another, how different would it be with or without people on this planet anyways?
I don't think my personality would change in the slightest.
If a self didn't exist inside of you, you would probably be empty and shallow, but even when you have everything you want, you will feel very accomplished and successful, but then you will get bored and look for another challenge, i can easily say that the self may just be a greedy fragment of humanities unison.
If self didn't exist, maybe production would go a lot easier.
I converse with myself everyday to make sure i know what i am thinking, that way i dont make any sudden mistakes, or something doesn't go according to plan, that is why i always know in advance what it is that should be done or shouldn't be done.
If you want to know more about the self of human beings, i suggest that you create a documentary including the cultures of people all over the world. It is the only way to figure out what it truly is, only by asking numerous people with different, or the same views on life, will you fully even begin to grasp what is signified by all these cultural representations of (What our people do and why the believe in it).
On a similar note, the Yoga Sutras suggest that the fundamental error of consciousness occurs when the discriminative apparatus (buddhi) attempts to discriminate itself.
:) Which is basically what I was asking. Well, I would say that there is no basis on which the self can truly define itself, since it IS such a circular process. At best, there's some sort of overseeing process that takes what already exists, tries to reflect on it, and then makes decisions to add, change, remove something, etc, or reinterpret data, but there's nothing objective about that process.Originally Posted by EmotionallyTonedGeometry
The experience within that circle might feel very different, though, in terms of what the construct of self perceives.
It does seem to exhibit a remarkable trust to allow oneself to sleep, on the assumption that one will eventually wake up again.
the way I see it, the self is a vessel that contains ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, which are all transient expressions of an ever changing consciousness.
If we really knew about self ; we would have expressed it simply and clearly. But it turns out that , as EmotionallyTonedGeometry mentioned , each and every case of self-reference is wildly absurd. And so as self can , as we can most easily describe , only "think" ; thoughts might not lead us to the true discovery of self .
While I am not an expert on epistemology ; I think that there are different levels of knowledge and intuition/innate wisdom is one of the different types of 'knowing'. While I understand that a mixture of reason , sensory data , and abstract data (thoughts) that is rationalism ; works on most topics of human interest but the topic of 'self' or 'God' is an exception. As thoughts cannot "think" ; the self ,as we know it , is something more than just thoughts. Thoughts originate from self , self doesn't originate from thoughts ! So here reason just fails (as it is questioning the very being that gives it the ability to reason). This is just my opinion . I have never studied philosophy in in a lot of detail but ,as it seems you have, you can elaborate/judge my statement on philosophical grounds.1. Why intuition is more epistemically valid than rational inquiry
The self is a special case as I have mentioned above and as far it's epistemic privelege is concerned ; I think epistemology does give credit to idealistic thoughts .
2. Why the nature of the self should be a special case
While intuition is very useful, I don't think it's epistemically
All right it is not evident !
Why is it evident? It can't be that evident, or I wouldn't disagree.
A question to you . Is self the object or the subject in a philosophical dabate ?
Let's recap. You're asserting that a transcendent "self" exists, though
without assigning it any meaningful attributes. You deflect rational opposing
views by claiming that this is a special case where intuition is epistemically
privileged (justify this please), and then repeat that it's "evident" that your
position is correct. This reeks of being noncognitive to me.