Socrates says “know thyself”: I say which self?

Socrates says “know thyself”: I say which self?

I don’t know what happened to me. I was beside my self with worry.

My pet dog Fido uses his imagination to create image schemas to help him to comprehend and move about in his world. I use my imagination in much the same way but because my species can create abstract concepts I also use my imagination to create these abstract concepts.

I have the ability to use linguistic metaphors to help me comprehend my world and also my cognitive processes uses conceptual metaphors (structures from concrete experience) to construct abstract ideas while I am unconscious of this happening.

The concrete concepts, structured from experience, become primary metaphors that my unconscious imagination utilizes to construct image schemas for my abstract ideas.

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed a set of theories using these metaphors, both linguistic, and conceptual to examine such abstract concepts as what is self, time, causality, etc.

If we examine linguistic metaphors that are common to our culture regarding “self” we can determine much information regarding what we normally think about this matter.

SGCS inform me that we have many different common metaphors for “self”:

The General Subject Self “A person is divided into a Subject and one or more Selves.” The Subject experiences consciousness only in real time. This Subject is the center of reason, will, and judgment. The Subject is thought of as the essential self that encompasses our self as a person.

The Physical-Object Self“Self-control and object control are inseparable experiences from early childhood…Self Control is Object Control.”I lifted my hand—I lost my voice—I couldn’t control myself—the boy picked himself up from the ground.

The Locational Self I was besides my self with worry.

The above quotes from Philosophy in the Flesh by Lakoff and Johnson

We are born recognizing our self as a ‘me’. The ‘me’ is an object before ‘me’ becomes ‘I’, i.e. an executive subject. Only after this happens in an infant’s life can s/he “back away” from her or him self.

The child discovers first that s/he is a social product. Perhaps this will show us why we are so often mere puppets jerked around by alien symbols and sounds. Perhaps this is why we are so often just blind ideologues (blindly partisan).

In order to separate the ego from the world it seems that the ego must have a rallying point. It must have a flag about which to rally. That flag is the “I”. The pronoun ‘I’ is the symbolic rallying point for the human’s ego; it is the precise designation of self-hood. It is concluded by those who study such matters that the ‘I’ “must take shape linguistically”. The self or ego “is largely a verbal edifice”.

“The “I” signals nothing less than the beginning of the birth of values into a world of powerful caprice…The personal pronoun is the rallying point for self-consciousness.” The wedding of the nervous ability to delay response, with the pronoun “I”, unleashed a new type of animal; the human species began. The ‘I’ represents the birth of values.

Upon the discovery of the “I” the infant human becomes a precise form, which is the focus of self-control. The creatures previous to the arrival of humans in the chain of evolution had an instinctive center within itself. When our species discovered the “I” and its associated self-control centers a dual reality occurred. “The animal not only loses its instinctive center within itself; it also becomes somewhat split against itself.”

Becker, the winner of the Pulitzer for “The Birth and Death of Meaning”, notes that Kant was perhaps the first to impress upon us the importance of the fact that the infant becomes conscious first of itself as a “me” and then only as “I”. This order of discover has been shown to be universal.

I have noticed when an infant becomes an ‘I’, when all of a sudden they behave in a self-conscious manner. Have you noticed such a change taking place in a child?

Quotes from The Birth and Death of Meaning—Ernest Becker

very important question… what am I…

in my book there are four identities and a unifiying component:

  1. body (what your body is)

  2. cosmic (what you are in relation to the universe)

  3. soul (what your soul is)

  4. supreme (what your soul is in relation to God)

  5. How all these four points fit together…

Are we not a whole? if we were to view ourselves from the bigger-picture angle, then surely we’d get a better perspective of ourselves within the whole scheme of things, or… look within to look outwards.

As of recent this question by Socrates and as it relates to Socrates has become more clear to me

Socrates two most famous quotes were “know thyself” and “The only thing that I know is that I know nothing”

To put it very simply (but by no means completely), I interpret “know thyself” as knowing the “I” that doesn’t know, i.e., the Ego, and once that has been understood and seen for what it is, to begin the life long quest of knowing the “I” that does know, i.e., the “true self”.

As of recent this question by Socrates and as it relates to Socrates has become more clear to me

Socrates two most famous quotes were “know thyself” and “The only thing that I know is that I know nothing”

To put it very simply (but by no means completely), I interpret “know thyself” as knowing the “I” that doesn’t know, i.e., the Ego, and once that has been understood and seen for what it is, to begin the life long quest of knowing the “I” that does know, i.e., the “true self”.

As of recent this question by Socrates and as it relates to Socrates has become more clear to me

Socrates two most famous quotes were “know thyself” and “The only thing that I know is that I know nothing”

To put it very simply (but by no means completely), I interpret “know thyself” as knowing the “I” that doesn’t know, i.e., the Ego, and once that has been understood and seen for what it is, to begin the life long quest of knowing the “I” that does know, i.e., the “true self”.

Michel Foucault provides us the answer.

This ‘I’ we think we have, is merely constructed through the discourses and power of social institutions. Think about it, it is economically beneficial for those in positions of power to create this ‘I’. As such, there really is no ‘I’. What i think Socrates is really getting at here is trying to understand the meanings which create that false sense of ‘self’.

There is no concept of ‘I’ outside those meanings which impose it on us.

Seems people as usual and totally ignorent of basic psycology, why relying on ancient oudated philosophers would be a great folly.

There are concepts such as panic, emotions such as love, hate, indifference …etc, group think, flock instinct, psycosis and skitzophrenia …etc …etc.

It would be impossible to know one self, as one would act very differently in various situations, even more different if under influence by others.
By group think a charismatic leader can change a group/individuals very much, to do great feats, overcome fear …etc, also do the oppsite inducing fear, mass hysteria …etc.

Hex,

First of all you drop “group think” a lot is there a book or short explanation of what this is? Secondly althoughmany things have changed I don’t think Socrates was so far off. People in this thread seem to be overcomplicating it in my opinion. I think he simply means “get to know yourself.” If you are not aware of your natural inclinations, your bias, etc., your view will forever be redshifted. Sorry to steal a modern example. How many of you out there are amazed at the armies of people you’re surrounded by who are like twigs in the water. They are lead only by the current and have no knowledge of the current either. On the other hand even our attempts to “know ourselves” could be another nescessary current which we of the more cerebral bent are carried along on unknowingly. My 2 cents.
-Lell

So in all this elaborate rethorical hot air of yours, I couldn’t find any point why I should drop group think, there wasn’t any sound argumentation. It all was argumented with weird metaphors which doesn’t relate to anything.

-Lell
[/quote]
So in all this elaborate rethorical hot air of yours, I couldn’t find any point why I should drop group think, there wasn’t any sound argumentation. It all was argumented with weird metaphors which doesn’t relate to anything.
[/quote]
Hex,

I wasn’t saying you need to drop Group Think I was saying I don’t know what it is. My point was simply that everyone seems to overcomplicate these questions. Probably in an insecure attempt to be seen as intelligent. If my metaphors don’t work fine. I am not the mouth for these ears.

-Lell

So whenever people makes a correct diagnose, they are insecure? …wow? Is it because googleing the word would be too difficult for you, and viciously take 10 min away from your precious life?

You apparently are upset with me. I don’t want to argue I was trying to add my 2 cents. If you don’t want to take the time to explain it that’s all you have to say. I’d say your entitled to your opinion. Chalk it up as a waste of your time. My apologies.
-Lell

I assume you are from USA.

Besides, ask for clarification, and you may indeed recive clarification! …very simple!

Please debate the point at hand, and not about the person i.e. stay on-topic please

…as you were :smiley:

Well, this thread went to hell quickly.

It’s been a long time since I posted my first reply (which I accidently posted three times, sorry)

Hmm… let meditate on the thread title some more and see if a different perspective comes to me.

Ok, which self? All of them, and how they relate to eachother. Socrates, me, and his daemon alike. The gross, the subtle, and formless alike.

To thy ownself be true, Give me the boy of seven and I will show you the man of seventy, I beleive this relates to our sence of justice. To know thyself is to behave in accordance with this, every now and again we do things contrary to our own sence of right and rong, these will appear like spikes on a graph, though not acceptable, if we acknowledge that we have done rong we may be able to atone and so return to the base line, ie. our true selves.

If the psyco and skitzo can’t aknowledge what is wrong, how can they achive “return to the base line” when their baseline is distorted due to their faulty mind?

I think you are muddying the water a littel, I should be happy to let the thread go that way if you wish to discuss madness, though I would prefer to hear how you would define the self.

You don’t understand the complexity of the potential answer. You should read up on psycology and neurology and see how complex it truly is.

It’s like asking how are humans behaving, which answer would be extremely complex.