does the self persist through time ?

well does it ?

are you the same self today as you were 5 years ago?

-Imp

no

yet you have memories of the past

so is the self based on memories ?

I would argue no, not entirely based on memories as memories fade…

some habits die hard

-Imp

then what do you think is the core of the self ?

the self has been a hard thing for me to understand

I know that I exist , yet I’m seperate from every other Human , an individual

I think you are what you make yourself to be in each moment…

no more, no less.

-Imp

agreed

I think memory, and body are definitely the most important keys to the self.

Even if you have a problem where your memory keeps getting skewed up bad all the time, so you remember being in the store yesterday one moment, and the next you remember yesterday you were a soldier in the southeast camping in the rain, as long as you have a memory, true or false, at one moment, you can define your “self” based on that.
And if you wake up with no memory, you’d really have no way of thinking what your personality is. It just works out in the present or is based on your past memories. In this case, you look down at your hands and legs and torso, and you realize…that’s me. self.

To the onlooker, I’d think a body is important for them to sort of have a reference for your “self”. And it’s all about their memory of you that makes your “self” to them.

I’d say we are all perpetually walking down a path of time, walking backwards. All we can see is the past. All we can be in is the present but we can never quite see the present. We can look down at our body and see ourselves walking. And we can never see the what’s ahead.

I’m more and more inclined to believe that we can never truly uncover what ‘me’ is.

For me it is a bit like a Rolf Harris drawing, where he starts with a series of lines, and as he draws more it becomes apparent what the picture is. However unlike Rolf’s drawings, for us, the beginnings of the picture fade and dissapear. No one could assert they can fully remember and visualise all that has happened to them in their life. Some memories persist, but even these are falliable. Indeed all we can see in the drawing of ‘me’ is the current perceptions. By the time the drawing is complete, we have no idea what the beginning was like. We can never experience the whole picture.

Is personal identity then, a trap we fall into from a very early age, from which we cannot escape? Indeed the mind as it develops asserts the existence of ‘me’, to explain the similarity of its experiences.

Can personal identity be innate? Are we born with a sense of ‘me’? I can’t see how we can be.

We accept the false notion and the world is explained in terms of continued identity, for to not accept it, would involve re-wiring of the mind, that may not even be possible.

A “self” is a construct, just as a “thing” is a construct. Things and selves don’t in fact exist in isolation, and they never persist. Things and selves don’t have essences, we impute their essences.

The self persists through time in a series of memories along with whatever current perception that exists at the time.

( Although memories change over time oddly enough where they do not remain the same upon the original time of obtaining them.)

Xunzian once convinced me a long time ago, that the ‘self’ is our relationships, and it is through our relationships that we persist through time.

why ? why would the self be solely based on relationships

The question is… why would you care to define “self” if not for the sake of others?

explain further

The self does persist through time but it is also in a constant state of flux or motion
That is to say that it is never the same at any two points in time for nothing truly is

When the self dies then it is no more a conscious entity although it may survive in part within the memories of others
But any memory of a self is not the same as the actual self as such so is therefore less real than the being it relates to

The self is three fold: concept, image, role.

Most people see themself as someone distinct from others, some run away from such distinction and get involved in group activity as much as possible and after all that develop a concept of who they are on basis of how they see themselves, then use a mirroring technique to show everyone that they are acting in accordance to other’s view of them, so that they can see them being active in promoting this image of acting as such.

Nothing else remains but some memory of how to go through this routine, and if it is unique in some sense and has a mind of lasting effect, others will try it.

The soul, that, which comes about because of the eternal vibrations evoking both sight and sound, does so in all combinations both gross and subtle, and are probably akin in being prone to the gravitational forces, that prescribe cognitive arrangements, from indistinguishable to unique formations.
That these persist through time, is probable proof positive through the various studies that have been done on unexplained phenomenon, that include both philosophical and psychological demonstration .

It is arguable , therefore that such are proof of the validity of the supposition implicit in the theme of this forum.

The soul self persists infinitely.

Aquinas calls it the wendyus actus essendi, and it is that which gives to the essence of a Wendy, its existence.

The soul :laughing:
That unfalsifiable nebulous hand-wavey concept that seems just so convenient when you’re introduced to it as a child until you think about it for just a minute :smiley:

The self equally defies all precise definition - so engrained in our grammar that “selves” don’t stop to consider how any source of thoughts infinitely retreats from the possibility of being thought about - to the point of impossibility.

What this guy says makes far too much sense after a minute of thinking past its seeming counter-intuitiveness:

And then what Mad Man P quips about valuing “the self” being only for the sake of others - that hits the nail on the head.

Like all words and concepts, they develop socially, and only within a social context. There’s no need to think in words if not to communicate them to others, so without others they don’t develop. It’s only with an audience that the need arises to distinguish the communicator from the recipient, and thus “selves” arise functionally rather than ontologically.