AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT "SELF"

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

AN ANALYSIS OF THE SELF AS IT MOVES TO HIGHER STAGES OF VALUE

Preliminary remarks: After learning to read and write, it would be an advance for civilization if children the world over would then learn the distinction between fact and value. They will be aware then that creativity – a value – is the result of playing around with known facts, with perceived properties, recombining them, re-arranging them in a novel way that results in something different and useful to the world, or at least to the one who creates. We are, by nature, value-generating organisms. So it is only natural when we innovate, upgrade, enhance, add value; this is at our best how we function. This is normal for us.

Now let us examine the evolution within an individual as s/he develops from “self-centric” to “axio-genic” …to adopt a couple of words employed by the Axiogenics coaches – educators and facilitators for those (kids and adults) who are ready to learn.
We shall, in our analysis, go from the ‘bad’ to ‘okay’ to ‘better’ to ‘best !’ – [We shall use the S, E and I tools which I have mentioned in earlier threads and posts, analyzing “honesty” and “a good action.”]

We start with the concept “selfishness". This – from an Ethical perspective – is the bad ! [Technically speaking, in the discipline of Formal Axiology, selfishness is a Transposition of Values: it is a mix-up of values, an incongruity. ] Selfish individuals do not think about anyone else. They just want what they want, and take it. It is inconsideration.

Hence we may define it as: “Taking what I want without consideration for others.”

Perhaps selfish people say to themselves: “I’m better than you.” They think they are superior to the rest of us. They lack humility. These people may believe they are a member of an aristocracy, an elite, looking down their noses at others.

Yet some selfish individuals undervalue themselves. Cognitively, they may be telling themselves: “I’m not worthy of being given anything. If I don’t grab my share, someone else is going to take it.”
Transposing values gets to the concept “selfishness.”

Let’s move up a notch. Systemically valuing self we arrive at another concept: Self-interest. This is okay. There is nothing wrong with being self-interested: Babies, children, adolescents, all display this in a big way – until maturity is reached …which could occur at any age. At maturity, one feels some responsibility for others, along with pursuing one’s individual needs; one starts to care beyond the narrow self.

In contrast, the Extrinsic value of self is: Self-development. This is a form of self-interest – a more-evolved form. Yet better than mere self-interest. Now one seeks out teachers, coaches, therapists in the quest for self-improvement, or one engages in self-study. Let’s go to a higher stage:

The Intrinsic value of the self (the axiogenic awareness) is: Self-transcendence to enlightenment– along with humility… Of all the stages mentioned, this is the best !!!

Once a person has enlightened-self-interest he or she knows that: “What helps you, if it really does help you, helps me.” “What affects you directly, affects me indirectly.” We rise or fall together. …and this applies to all the people on Earth.” “What we are trying to accomplish is: a high quality of life for all.”

This entails that we minimize suffering whenever we can, for when people are hurting they tend to be self-centered. Social injustice causes people to hurt, so it follows that we ought to pursue Social Justice.

Once a person is enlightened he knows that we are all just trying to make a life, that cooperation helps, that civic responsibility is important. He knows that transparency, and authenticity, and integrity, are great values to have. He wants to be of service. He wants to uplift and boost others. He wants to create value. He is now mindful of doing every act in the most efficient manner possible with a view to encouraging a higher quality of life for one and all. He sees the human species as all one family; he has, so to speak, extended his ethical compass, swept in, as his in-group, a larger amount of people. He embraces a variety within a unity. He is aware that we all do better when WE ALL do better. He consciously observes Ethical principles and has made a habit of living by them.

As I understand Darwin, and I may be wrong, the “fittest” means “the most adaptable.”

Is it possible that sweet cooperation will help our species adapt better than any bullying, envy, greed?

Greed is an obsessive-compulsive disorder; it is a neurosis. Due to education some day everyone will be aware of this at a young age. Bullying is violently coercive; it often results in suffering. The whole idea of aiming for a quality life means that you are to do the things that get you there. The flip side of this is to suffer less. You want that, don’t you?

What gets us there? The Four Laws of Life get us there.
They are: Know yourself. Choose and accept yourself. Create yourself. Give yourself.
(with thanks to Robert S. Hartman.)
If there is interest, we can explore each one in more detail in future posts.)

[size=150]
Be a love-finder rather than a fault-finder ! :exclamation:[/size]

COMMENTS? QUESTIONS?

2

the matter that has been raised by the author of the post is something like an invisible fabric we are entangled with,but we just dont realize that it is there,or rather try concealing it through other sophisticated sorts of ideas…apart from the verbal and linguistic aspect and psychology of SELF,a new vista of knowledge regarding it is necessary…i seriously encourage the author to keep his researches on more subtle and vivid aspects of self because i believe,the existence is eccentric around self…if self is understood then i believe,that will be a giant leap to human’s intellectual growth…

3

Say what? Maybe the self is eccentric within existence?

4

But of course be a love finder, and then things will go right. Pessismism is out! Nietzche was right. But limits to overindulgence as a product of overcoming can bring on unprecedented troubles, usually germinating from a lack of realization of how true pessimism feels.

5

Greetings, oboe

You write about how true pessimism feels. and I respond:, Of course. Many if not most of us are tempted to express pessimism - as the concept is carefully-defined in the the discussion of it in the pages to which I shall now offer a reference.

For your reading enjoyment, see pages 44-45 of LIVING THE GOOD LIFE. Here is a link to it: - tinyurl.com/aho5cyq

There you will find a section headed “On Optimism, Pessimism, and Realism.” It is illustrated with cartoons that help make the point. It is in the chapter which informs us about facts of human nature. That chapter also contains Ethical prescriptions, moral principles, and is expository in style rather than in the dialog mode of the UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS – links to which you may also find in the signature below.

I’d love to get your impressions after you read that analysis of “pessimism” - a discussion which attempts to clarify the concept.

Furthermore, there is now much evidence compiled in the discipline Positive Psychology - a well-established subdivision of scientific Psychology - as to the benefits of Optimism for good health, well-being, etc., explaining how it exactly contributes to a quality life.

Also,for those interested in efficient and effective self-development, see - and participate in - the web-course amindforsuccess.com to learn how to reduce perception gaps, for this skill is highly-relevant to the aspect of Ethics about which you express your concern.

That course makes it very clear why pessimism is not in our self-interest.

6 
 Hello thinker:

Thanks for that, of course, pessimism is not in our self interest,especially if it is a feigned , affectatiously forged state.

Not for a minute,did I honestly think that. The pretence of a long sustained but artificial state would at any time be believed, if it did not believe in naïve personality patterning which goes on among parents and children,society and individuals.

They carry with them a facade, and such a facade is painfully evident in most cases.

Experts are divisive about what is real and what is not, and pessimism per se, is something of an anomalie… There is no clear definitioN between what experts think and what the individual feels.

I can’t say individuality is an absolute signature for any one, there is an approaching dread for instance, that only a reoccurance of a great soul can save the artificiality, and the approaching chaos, calling for honesty, and visibility.

Of course, your allusions are greatly appreciated at this juncture, when having come to a de structured realisation, I do have to look at myself in the mirror with incredulity, not at all able to afford any romantic notions of what the sadness of pessimism implies.

I wish I could laugh at it, but the really sad thing is that it is partially true. The true parts are archytipical, and dreams do come trough,almost unbelievably as omens or warnings, and in that respect, all real and unreal distinctions merge and are producers of absurd patterns,held. for what, it’s hard to say, but would gather to guess, for some kind of reserve.

That such an naive stance is useful or not, acceptable or not, it is no longer obvious to me. that is difficult to say. That someone other then myself is thinking is beyond doubt, but in effect, that someone is still me.

We are here to learn, so it is with gratitude I take your implications to heart, and will go through the list of items recommended.

As always: obe

7

[b]I like your attitude. We are in this life to learn.

I appreciate your appreciation. The analysis of “self” in the o.p., along with the analysis of “honesty” in a recent thread I offered, and the analyses of “justice”, and of “morality”, found in the Unified Theory of Ethics, are all done with a view to clarifying the terms of Ethics, making Ethics into a coherent discipline, where the parts of it hang together and are well-connected - by a theory which contributes relevant knowledge to the world. Ethics deals with what is good in, and for, human individuals.[/b]

What is good in, and for, humans may not be good in, and for, something else, say, rats; hence goodness for humans is a specific kind of goodness It must be distinguished from goodness in general - from axiological goodness. A good murderer - one who murders efficiently - is a bad person (speaking morally.)

8

Without trying to be quaint, or funny, I do agree with the above assessment. I have not looked at a unified ethics as of yet, I have always felt though, that even if a person messes up at times, it’s probably a difficult thing for him to excuse that mistake, if he be an idealist of any sort.

Idealists are usually eccentric and it interferes with self assessment.
They need others to help them to justify their behaviour, and this is why only the lesser idealists will be able to resist a shift toward a more practical ethics on their own. It’s unavoidable, and the confusion arises, when one level of ethical judgement is applied to another.

Boundary situations shift alongside, and this is why some of them retract to a prior position, where a time worn way of dealing with ethical issues was easier to justify.

This is why the concept of evolution of ethics is such a fascinating idea.

Whenever there is a shift, which has its motivation grounded in an honest appraisal of it’s consequences, then, when the going gets rough, the idea that what is right, is the proper thing to do, serves well as a justified bulwark , as a barrier against a fullback.

Thinker, I am not sure I should have even replied as such, and had no time the last couple of days to look into the suggested reading list. I will do that this week and hopefully be able to answer more comprehensively. However I thought, I owed this, by way of a response.

 Esteem issues of persons who over or undervalue themselves, does not  proceed with an even pace, and  holding  unto inappropriate or worn out values, may or may not present difficulties later one with consequent right actions.

Simply repeating the mantra , “do the right thing” may be enough for a self justification for an ethical life, but as time passes, and more wisdom is garnered, looking back, these may seem inadequate or even wrong.

Again, I appreciate Your comments.

9

Hi there,

Thanks for the encouragement !

Perhaps what Dan says on pages 22-23 of Aspects of Ethizs - about the self seen as a ‘holon’ - is relevant to what you mean… Note that a link to this brief paper is offered in the signature below.

10

I would add to what I said this perspective:

As we go through life we differentiate ourselves, we see how we are different from everyone else, we define who we are, in our unique individuality, we expand our horizons, in other words, we develop the picture of ourselves: we engage in self-development.

There are Extrinsic aspects of this, but if done right, it results in Intrinsic Values …our self-interest becomes enlightened. We reach the magnificent state of Self-Enlightenment. And we gain humility. We discard arrogance. We learn to add value at every opportunity, and we choose to do it. We make a habit of creating some greater value; we boost each other up; we find merit; we see goodness. We contribute to it. We change the world in a positive, a constructive, direction.

Someone once asked me: “How can you tell if you are moving in the right direction, that is towards becoming a person of good character?”

If your life is working smoother, if you have contentment or happiness, and if you have taken on some responsibility, if things are clicking and good things seem to be coming your way, in other words: if you feel you are acquiring practical wisdom, and that you are thriving: if children and dogs love you. If you light up a room by entering it, if the people you encounter feel like a plant that has been watered because you brightened their day, if you are active in the struggle for human rights, for a quality life for all.

Then you are going in the right direction.

Comments? Enhancements? Questions?

11

The Enlightened Self has concerns in Social Ethics and in Applied Ethics. For example, a person with enlightened-self-interest would see a problem with the institutions related to war and belligerence.

Along this line, I would call your attention to this[size=150] new book by David Swanson - WAR NO MORE: The case for abolition. It is available in many ways, virtually free of charge, at this site:
davidswanson.org/warnomore
[/size]
It can be downloaded over the internet. Don’t miss it !

This author is a genius of the first water. He writes and speaks masterfully; and has brilliant values.

He has delivered a fine contribution to both theoretical and applied ethics.

[size=85]Robert Fantina, of southern Ontario, Canada, wrote this review of the book for Amazon, which I quote:[/size]
"‘War No More’ is a remarkable book, clearly defining why ending war is, indeed, possible. Mr. Swanson, with his usual clarity, candor, and straight-forward thinking, describes both why it must be done, and how that task can be accomplished. Reaching back into history, he demonstrates how other horrific practices, such as slavery, which were thought `necessary’ for one reason or another, were eventually abandoned, and makes logical, reasonable comparisons about how the same or similar methods could work in ending war today.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who sees the futility, cruelty and horror of war, but may still believe that some war is inevitable. The facts and theories presented in ‘War No More’ make clear the idea that war can be ended. "


Comments? Your impressions of the case Swanson makes?