Several discussions have recently hinged upon defining the notion of “human self”. So, let’s go for it. Or at least have a discussion on it.
I’ll throw Tu Weiming’s definition into the ring:
Given a social view of ‘self’, then it follows that:
We are not, nor ever were, lone hunters but rather mutually-dependent creatures.
Xunzian, I don’t think you have defined “self” but rather presented a relationship between ourselves and humanity that seems similar to what I said in the fourth paragraph of my short post Life: a reaction to the void
“In philosophy, the self is the idea of a unified being which is the source of an idiosyncratic consciousness. Moreover, this self is the agent responsible for the thoughts and actions of an individual to which they are ascribed. It is a substance, which therefore endures through time; thus, the thoughts and actions at different moments of time may pertain to the same self.”
OK, this may be hard for you to get your heads around…here it goes…
Self is what the world is when it is Not NOT without you there.
I think that deserves some sort of applause
=D>
That’s the validity of the point I have been trying to make to Xunzian, but he just won’t admit that I’m right … (joking Xunzi)
Again, the ant is a very poor representation when used in comparison either individually or socially with the homonid. They don’t “think”, they are purely chemically reactant creatures lacking the cognitive ability to discern likeness or dissimilarity on an individual basis, predicated upon an inherently intrinsic processed understanding of “I, myself”.
Again, anyone who has had children, will understand that we are not “socially defined selves” as a single instance understanding of our own entity as individual, neither is sociality the presiding causal agent of defining self.
Reductionism and infinite regress approaches, although stable for general empricism, do not work well with the study of the homonid, which has far less predictability, even in a closed system, than most entities of the natural order. Although, most certainly if the differences are shown, someone willl invariably pull the “anomaly” card.
We still aren’t there for “self”, I’m waiting to see more definitions.
How about ‘the origin and subject of consciousness’? I seem to remember this being Hume’s contention, but I could be wrong about that.
Self: A contained, distinct unity of forces (energies), sometimes governed by a central arbitrator, a mind, which focuses and controls said forces and becomes self-aware, in the process, by recognizing what forces it has control over and which ones it doesn’t.
The concept of ‘in’ and ‘out’, or I and Other, then becomes a distinction between what is under its domain and what is not or what is an immediate manifestation of its Will and what is not.
The unity, (organism, creature) then attempts to find order and stability (completion) within its domain (cutting a piece of time/space away from the totality), by assimilating and manipulating the energies around it, through the focus and efficient usage of its own, and by incorporating these ‘other’ energies within its own processes towards self-realization (conflict, competition, cooperation).
Can you give any more information siatd? Synopsis maybe?
satyr wrote:
But there are distinctions (seperatness) going on within the subject as well. Unconscious forces, for example, which may be utilized by the will, but are nevertheless not under the will’s control. (The unconscious can be utliized by realizing insights [inner sight] about internal driving psychic-forces determining certain behaviors. For instance, a man exhibits inertia due to unconscious (that is, non-conscious apprehension) of repressed hostility toward his father or mother. (And there are countless other examples.)
This leads to the conclusion that there is an Other(s) estranged within the self.
“self-realization (conflict, competition, cooperation).”
This model strikes me as constricting. A more liberating paradigm to operate under (and I believe there is room for choice here) would be to start-off with the Sartrean notion “Existence preceeds essence,” leaving open faucets for essence to take shape/form in an encompassing of any phenomenology. Which would allow for essence to be, without the nessecity of control and/or will. Such a move, at the very least, seems to allow for a greater encompassing of time – time, ergo, experienced as simultaneous; (not as a particular slice).
Thoughts?
[size=75](edit: grammar)[/size]
Lowercase “s” self represents a person’s individuality or lower nature, which is worthless without the uppercase “S” Self, representing the consciousness of all things. “Self-self” is a word symbol for a balanced or supposedly enlightened person.
Self–
Science–the observer.
Linguistics–the subject
Philosophy–the problematic “I”
Psychology–that which exhibits observable, individualized behavior in a social setting
Sociology–an ego, meme constructed
Biology–the this that interacts with the that
Mysticism–the this that is that
Religion–what is corrupt by vitue of inherited corruption
Here–they are all one thing!
The Underground Man
Yes.
One can also have an unconscious control over forces.
This ‘otherness’ within the self is caused by a partial apprehension of the unity’s totality - the forces that affect and guide the mind, without it realizing it, are still under its dominion if it consciously becomes aware of them and decides to take over.
Sometimes unconsciousness is self-inflicted, as the mind struggles for excuses and alibis, to deal with the disparity between a self-ideal and a self-judgment or between a self-judgment and a world-ideal.
Essence, for me, is the totality (consciously perceptible or not) of its becoming; the totality of the choices it has made or have been made for it and in relation to the environment/circumstances which force these choices – its heritage – which have resulted in a particular presence with a particular outlook and direction (behavior/nature).
The mind, then, becomes an interpreter of this history; which would account for the differences in self-consciousness between different organisms.
The human organism is a given, the Self is either attained or not. The Self is that state of consciousness where the organism is exactly where is genetical makeup is most effective. To get there depends on instinct, experience aquired by following instinct, learning from experience, implementing what one has learned, developping intuition in the routine of implementing what one has learned, growing to recognize one’s intuition as connecting one’s genetical with the outide world, and finally the love for that intuition. In this love, the Self becomes known.
Such is my experience.
When love comes into play, trust in one’s impulsives makes a giant leap, risks are taken, and the Self is ultimately attained by chance.
This has implications: the Self can only be attained by the enterprising, the brave - those who dare to mistrust common sense on crucial moments.
Define self.
A unit who sets out into the world to achieve… the outcome being governed by the parameters of the society that the unit is in.
That’s just my view on ‘self’ btw.
My problem with this is that it assumes that ‘self’ is fundamental. Durkheim (and others) would argue that ‘self’ is not fundamental, but rather an artifact of a fragmented (specialized) society.
Other definitions of self that I’ve seen either fall prey to Underground’s description, or are vague to the point of unworkability (I like SIATD’s definition, but I have to ask about its utility). Jakob’s isn’t bad either, but how can one then recognize the self?
I don’t know about everyone else, but I am my body. That’s my self.
At this point I can define “self” as the collection of empirical shapes: “s”, “e”, “l”, and “f”, for to suppose that those shapes are packed with meaning is altogether another question, and I see only those shapes in the post before me.
Nothing more.
Just an interesting cultural quirk, if you ask most Asians where they are inside their body, “self”, they either point directly between the eyes or at the center of the belly.
Maybe self isn’t defineable.
point of awareness
(from the micro to the macro(
Mas, I think “self” is one of those perfectly useful words that philosophers have gotten their filthy paws on and elevated to some sort of metaphysical importance - in several different flavors. I think that there is no one true definition, nor need there be. Then again, I’m a stubborn contextualist.