Selfness is a very complicated idea. In Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary, selfhood (which is referenced by selfness) is stated as, ‘The state of being an individual person; individuality.†Person is said to be, “A human being…†Still, the idea of the “self†is vague at best. Through thought and consideration, I propose the following speculation: I propose that the self is not one being, but rather the overall organization and collaboration of individual, but alive, beings. These beings are quite miniscule independently, but together create the highly complex unity every human is.
All that any human “self†is is their thoughts, memories and emotions. That is the entirety of the “self.†Without any one of them, the “self†is no longer the same “selfâ€. All thoughts, emotions and memories of the “self†lay deep within the recesses of the brain. The brain is formed by many tissue and the tissues by cells. These cells are indeed living creatures of themselves. They reproduce, metabolize, produce wastes and react to stimuli. The thought process is accomplished by the transmission of impulses from cell (neuron) to cell (neuron). So in reality, in stern and true reality, every human being is not a singularity of a “self,†but much rather a union of living beings that make up the “self.†A person is a unity.
With careful thought, this is something that is most likely quite true. In life, there is no “I†or “You,†only the “We, “Us†and “They.†It’s a very tricky concept to wrap your (plural) mind around (or neurons). Complicated and not very enchanting because of its implications, but, nonetheless, something we regard as true.
What do you all think?
(As Solus Animus, we refrain from mentioning anything beyond that we may or may not be one person. No matter the use of I or we, it is in agreement that I speak. We are indeed below the age of 18, however.)
There is no ‘self’ as such, merely a series of apparently unconnected experiences which we choose to label the ‘self’ in the hope of justifying certain behaviours. Ultimately all such epistemological constructs are designed for some ethical purpose…
With regards to the original post, I fail to see the advantage gained in saying there are smaller selves which make up a bigger self. At what granularity are you thinking? You seem to hint down to individual memory level or even further to cell level. Both, on their own, do not have the necessary conditions of being a ‘self’
Of course. How could “justice” and “law” exist if the individuals were not to be seen as responsible for their actions?
Now answer me a question, Someone. Do you think Osama is responsible for his actions, or we just have to blame his environment and the series of connections which resulted in his person and in his conceptions?
[You seem to have a wonderful conception of what “exists” and of what “doesn’t exist” so I think you’ll have no particular problems here]
However take care not to contradict yourself.
Beware of contradiction…
There are only two ways to talk about the self: one if from a second person perspective where the self is portrayed objectively, where “self” is something that not only is the person speaking, but also what he is talking about. Also, by using language he is neccessarily participating in a web of vocabularies- he is “thinking in words” to himself…or talking with words in his explanation to another. So the very possibility of “questioning the self” relies on at least one fact; that there are “selves” which create the discourse in question forming and thinking. Every word you have ever thought of, or every new word you have thought of that would be defined by other words which you did not think of, as at some point there must be a deferral, was given to you by the web.
So in this second person perspective, the proof begets itself that there are “selves” which exist. There could be no such subjects as “me” and the “Other” without language. There can be no language without the necessity of exchanging information between parts. Where there are parts there are “selves,” particulars.
I know this through teleology, it is not empirical knowledge. I look at the function of language and not language itself. The reason for the phenomena is not synonomous with the content of it- everything can be made into nonsense that is spoken. I’m considering the fact that language has evolved only, and what it is used for. Communicating between parts.
The other is the first person, solipsism. If you hold the position that because only what you experience can be known and since you cannot experience the Other’s first person perspective, you cannot assume he exists, then this will work. Frankly I’d rather steer clear of solipsism because its the ever-lasting gobstopper…the last dance…the singing fat lady, etc., etc. Descartes wasn’t fucking around when he set out in all manner of skepticism to discern what could be known and what could not. Technically it is possible that none of you exist and only I exist. Fucking Descartes. He’s ruined everything.
So I conclude that the self is a single perspective of one body. The body is not personal and is not a “self,” it is the totality of all that exists.
Being self-conscious is being able to paint a simple representation of the self.
At man, this consciousness demands an internal perception of the diverse that is given to the subject beforehand in its sentience – the mode in which this diverse enters sensibility. If the faculty of being self-conscious is to perceive what is going on in the sensibility, then the sensibility has to be affected, this being the only way it can produce an intuition of the self. In other words, the self has intuitions of itself not as how it would represent itself unmediated an spontaneous, but by the way it is affected in its interiority, ergo thus how it appears to itself to be, and not how it is implicitly.
Ditto… Theres just various moments of content fixation. The “self” is at best a center of narrative gravity, useful for executive purposes. Its a network server for a population of motivations, discounting hyperbolically. As for being real… its about as real as microsoft windows, however real that is.
i essentially agree that the self is a mental construct, based in time. hume’s theory of the bundled self is an idea i wish he developed more fully.
however, i disagree that the self “changes” over time, for there is no set definition of the self that can exist without both time and thought. the self is innately a dynamic, spatial concept - not a static enitity.
if anyone denies the “self,” they are essentially denying the likely purposeful existance of critical thinking.
how can one think, and not be a “self?”
thus, the notion of the self as not being a singularity is sufficient for the meaning of the self in terms of self-definition, but not necessary just for its existance. i mean, in the same sense that we tend to think we have a personality, or unique character traits - these are intrinsic properties of the “self.” in other words, the self emerges when we define and self-realize, but it is not a meaningful term as a static state or as an intentionally defined end point.
…
“the unexamined life is not worth living.”
i think socrates would likely think that the self is what we realize when we examine ie. self-examination. that is the essential activity of the self. otherwise philosophy seems entirely meaningless if we deny it is a process of self-discovery.
the old existential phrase “existance precedes essence” suggests to me that maybe the self is all of the essence of the human experience. certainly that includes the “collective self” of humanity, and it’s perhaps necessary to have the “others” to have meaning for the self - but i still think the self is the construct of the individual mind. but, the collective adds meaning and context to the self, clearly.
Hello someisatthedoor:
I find this quote interesting:
Quote:
Now answer me a question, Someone. Do you think Osama is responsible for his actions, or we just have to blame his environment and the series of connections which resulted in his person and in his conceptions?
S— Individually he is not responsible (outside of the construct of law wherein he is guilty as hell), no…
O- Well just what the hell is this “he”? Since “There is no ‘self’ as such, merely a series of apparently unconnected experiences which we choose to label the ‘self’ in the hope of justifying certain behaviours. Ultimately all such epistemological constructs are designed for some ethical purpose…”
By using the name, or pronoun, you’ve already made the disjointed element united and responsible. In fact, in order to remain consistent with your initial take on the matter you would have to simply say that “Osama” does not exist as a “self”, as a “he” but as an “it”. For “Osama” to become responsible you would have to find the exact “Osama”, perhaps as Osama 9/10/01 thru 9/11/01 or something of that matter. There is no possibility for this answer of yours to be consistent if you do not first abolish Osama as a single unit…then we can discuss the constructs that seek to judge him.
But I must admit that the format of the question took for granted what you had already negated- the self, and thus left you in a bind.
You are of course right to point this out, and in ‘Osama’ I’m using a word that is always deferred from its actual meaning but for the sake of conversation and simplicity I glossed over such problems.
Thanks for your answer Someoneisatthedoor, bt I was thinking in the days prior of reading your response of yet another point you had made.
You said:
"There is no ‘self’ as such, merely a series of apparently unconnected experiences which we choose to label the ‘self’ in the hope of justifying certain behaviours. Ultimately all such epistemological constructs are designed for some ethical purpose…"
I believe that you’re here overenphasizing one aspect of the self, but which is secondary. Primarly, I believe, the self is maintained by the very nature of human language and other organizing systems such as mathematics. These systems predate what we could call ethical purposes, or modern takes about good or bad. Primarly the self assist mankind in refering succesfully to it’s world.
Just look at the awkwardness of the question posted before. Without establishing first what “Osama” is you cannot have any hope of judging it, but not just in the sense of ethical constructs but in all constructs which protect not just the self of men, but the “self” of an apple.
The same disjointed nature found in “Osama’s” self is carried, as Nietzsche showed, in all other things. Yet we communicate only by these “selves”, these magical generalisations, where not just Osama defines a unity, but so also with anything which is subject to enthropy, material or conceptual; subjects of change in time, but not in idea.
I believe that if we were to survey the contents of our language, as so many have done, we would find it filled with superstitions and imperfections, not because of ethical considerations but out of logical violations that make possible language and mathematics.
It seems that, though not theologically, we do live by faith.
As far as the advantage, there is none. Should there be? It’s just one of the four laws of my philosophical belief. 1. God is the supreme authority (I am religious, so of course i incorporate God into this. However, this is just showing that God is the supreme truth of all truth). 2. The teacher is not the distributor of truth, merely the speculator of knowledge. It may be best. It may be made better. 3. Truth can never be attained in totality; therefore no truth is in fact a truth and it is the speculators purpose to obtain proximity to truth. 4. Truth neither benefits nor harms humanity in nature. Truth is simply what is or what may be, rather than what is not or what may not be, whatever the circumstance.
Call them what you will, they are my governing laws of thought. At any rate, why is it that neither of the cells are a self? What do you define self as? If self is a human being, then no, they are not “selves,” but without them, there would be no “self.” I do not indicate that every one of them is the entire make up of a self, rather that the union of them are the self. We believe this, and all that matters is belief in life. If you strongly believe something, it is true. For example, if we believed that grass was a gas, then it is a gas. You can’t convince me otherwise if I believe that. You say its not a gas because the molecules are much less spread and tightly compacted. I respond by saying its green also, so it must be a gas. Irrational? possibly. But, everything is a belief. As i believe we are typing this. I only assume so because I “feel” the keyboard and I “see” the letters and I predict it will be posted. But really, am I doing anything at all? who knows, except of course God.
You might just be a little bit beyong me on that one. However, we feel you are correct in at least one way. In the end, everything boils down to what we make it because all we have is our ideas and beliefs. There is no point in stopping there though because it leaves us with nothing. Just because it is impossible to understand and may actually be nothing, whatever nothing is, we prefer to attempt at getting somewhere close to the truth. Whatever truth is, if it exists to you or anyone for that matter.
Well, simply put, i can answer this one myself. Osama bin Laden is guilty because he is the union of “selves” (whatever you may deem the self) and that union committted to the acts. Possibly, some parts of his overall being disagreed with what he decided to do (the “conscience”), but regardless, he did them. Rather, they did them. So they are responsible.
I agree. Nothing much more to be said.
You put us to shame. we have no idea what you said. Upon entering college, perhaps we should invest in some philosophy courses.
At any rate, we shall return at a later moment to address other points. And at the moment we are discussing another realization of the self. Perhaps its nothing. we shall try to discover.