How is this different from “self”?
Well he said different from animals, when we are animals.
I think we all know what is meant by the statement… different from animals.
Generally speaking when we talk about self we conceptualize the self “as” the feeler, thinker, wanter, etc.
For example: If your name was Bob and you said “I am Bob!” then this has a different meaning to Bob saying “I am a Person!”
Possibly people have never really thought about this difference in meaning (including myself).
What I am suggesting is that the ontological view of human being comes first, then the ontological view of person, then the ontological view of individual, and finally from these views we arrive at an ontological view of self. From all this we develop various schools of thought within various disciplines (psychology, medicine, religion, philosophy, etc).
I tend to think most people have the same/similar ontological view of human being.
It starts to diversify when we develop different ontological views of person.
I’d say you come into the position of a self when – by being developed from childhood with knowledge of things outside of you and inside of you (stored in memory) – you think, feel or believe you are a distinct entity surrounded by other things. As you project the knowledge onto objects, you feel a sense of separation from them. It’s as if there is a circumference of things out there of which you are the center.
Nature is busy creating unique individuals each one being unprecedented, unparalleled and unrepeatable. Society has created ‘person’ for the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo. As a person you can be judged as flawed because of society.
I am finding it hard to communicate what I am thinking.
Once again let us imagine we are Bob and we say
“I am a human being”
“I am a person”
“I am an individual”
“I am Bob”
We would relate to each one of these statements in a different way.
Bob develops his notion of self by developing ideas of what it means to be a human, a person and an individual which he generally observes outside of himself as socially constructed norms. As you said, self develops by comparing things outside of you with things inside of you.
It may help by looking at how various schools of thought within psychology have developed within the U.S. and Europe at different times in history. Each school has different notions of self and how to treat self. I would probably avoid doing the same with religion as this is an emotive subject and our bias would get in the way.
Try to distinguish here the “I” from that which follows “am”. It is difficult. On the one side there is ‘human being’ – ‘person’ – ‘individual’ – ‘Bob’. On the other side there is the illusion of a separate “I” as a counter thought: a thinker that is reading the knowledge contained in thought. In essence it is thought looking at itself or in other words one activity, which is thought splitting itself in two creating the illusion of a subject (“I”) and an object (‘person’, etc.). There is only one thing that is continually maintaining the “I” that is there and that is the constant utilization of thought.
I was trying to avoid going down this path as I think it hinders discussion. The discussion then becomes focused on “is there a doer that is doing the doing?”
In either case, when I use the word “self” I do not relate to this word as “I” I relate to it in a different way. For e.g. If you call me a fat arsed monkey and it made me upset. I would then say “you hurt me!” In saying this I am not conjuring up the notion that the “I” in you hurt the “I” in me. So, I am trying to avoid a linguistic trap and looking at “person” not in the context of the “I”. But instead how we relate to these words and how we connect to them.
But in either case, a new born has not yet acquired language and so cannot use the linguistic term “I”.
And yet this discussion is language based. You are analyzing. Trying to break down the experience of a connection; trying to take the subject out of the object of experience. Any claim of an experience presupposes not only an awareness of the experience as an object, but also a recognition of it as an experience. And these conditions are enough to destroy any possibility of there being a unity, let alone an experience of unity, because any recognition implies a duality or division between the subject and the object. How can there be an experience of unity where there is a subject left out of the object of experience?
I am not trying to take the subject out of the experience. That is not my cup of tea.
I am trying to focus on the notion of “person” but others bring the focus back to “I” (stuck in a philosophical loop).
It is a bit like a camera focusing on an image and taking a photo of a beautiful landscape.
When we discuss the photo of the landscape we are not discounting the existence of the camera.
But we could constantly discuss the fact that the photo was taken by the camera, the make/model of the camera, the quality of the lens, the origin of its parts, the types of materials used, etc. We have then discounted the actual photograph (the entire purpose of having a camera).
A “person” is like the landscape (the photo).
The “I” is like the camera.
Lets discuss the landscape and not the camera as there are lots of camera discussions on ILP.
It seems to me that your five above can also describe the self.
Maybe person is simply a word we use more often to describe the human being on surface. Self goes deeper into who we are.
Can you expand on that for me please.
I understand and I am not trying to counter you. The eye is the camera and it is not expected that the eye will supply the knowledge of what it is transferring from the retina thru the optic nerve to the brain. There must be a linking up or kind of coordination with knowledge stored in memory in order to interpret what is being looked at. So if I look at a person or myself in a mirror and am asked to discuss, analyze or talk about that which I’m looking at, all the knowledge I have about it comes onto coordination by means of a coordinator. All there is is what I know – the knowledge. Also, the coordinator is subject to the same scrutiny, the outcome of which would be exactly the same: whatever it is that is known—the knowledge. There’s nothing mysterious or remarkable about it.
Jr Wells,
It’s not such an easy thing to describe words which appear to be similar.
The self for me encompasses all that we are, all that we are growing into. It’s the whole journey from birth to death of the organism which we are. Experience, thoughts…as you said.
Person is more the surface. Person for me includes personality, personal identity, looks, job, interests, et cetera.
I suppose I might compare it to the river. The person would be the surface of the river and the self would be everything which flows beneath, everything which continues on though we don’t often see it on surface. Like i said, diffiuclt to desribe.
Cannot say I agree with your view but it is a good view to have.
And yes, it is not easy to describe words that appear similar but have many differences.
Doesn’t that mean that on some level you do agree? I don’t need you to agree. Differences can get us further along to the truth too.
Naturally on some level I agree and on another level I disagree…but I respect your view and find no need to challenge it.
But if there is a level on which you disagree, I’m certainly up to the challenge. Or you need not challenge it but simply state what your perspective. After all, this IS a philosophy forum. Philosophy isn’t about agreeing necessarily - it’s about getting at the truth and seeing a larger picture. That’s just how I roll. lol I like that expression. A friend of mine uses it.
jr wells
Could work. I think the 'person" is more like the tip of the iceberg - the top half which is above water - most of the iceberg is not seen…below water. But it can be beautifully awesome.
I don’t think so. The “I” I think is more like the projector. This is why we use the psychological term of “projecting”.
So what you want to discuss basically is how we subjectively view ourselves - not necessarily reality. Is that correct?
To me, person is interchangeable with human. Person as opposed to tree, rock or giraffe. - A type of being.
Self is the individual. As opposed to others. My self, is not your self. - A reference to one’s own being.