Books That Explore Definition of Self

  • Thread starter Thread starter Author_Jerry
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Author_Jerry

Guest
I’m trying to do some research on a story idea that came to mind, and I’d appreciate your help. The male protagonist in this story feels isolated from society as a whole, for he believes that it has lost its proper identity to secular humanism, existentialism, or nihilism. (I haven’t decided yet. Maybe a mixture of the three.) What I need to know are books that explore definitions of the Self from a Catholic perspective and atheistic perspective. Any suggestions?
 
Henry David Thoreau Wrote about such things in His Walden books
 
Try the Gospels. It is in Jesus Christ (his life and his work) that man-kind finds its meaning, “the definition of self”. There’s an encyclical that talks about this… I don’t remember which one.

If you really want a great read, try Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity. His book talks about Jesus as a “being-for”, becomes the “exemplarary man”. If any man wants to know who he is, he must look to Jesus Christ.

That, my friend, is the Catholic answer.
 
Are you looking for strictly Catholic vs atheist definitions? Are these for a grammar school, high school, or college level work, or for the market? I would answer differently for each of these catagories from a wide array of books that treat of this topic, especially if yours is not just an ether/or question.
 
MarysDaughter said:
Try the Gospels. It is in Jesus Christ (his life and his work) that man-kind finds its meaning, “the definition of self”. There’s an encyclical that talks about this… I don’t remember which one.

If you really want a great read, try Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity. His book talks about Jesus as a “being-for”, becomes the “exemplarary man”. If any man wants to know who he is, he must look to Jesus Christ.

That, my friend, is the Catholic answer.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Mary. 👍 An excuse to read Ratzinger must be a good excuse, eh?
Are you looking for strictly Catholic vs atheist definitions? Are these for a grammar school, high school, or college level work, or for the market? I would answer differently for each of these catagories from a wide array of books that treat of this topic, especially if yours is not just an ether/or question.
Click to expand...
It’s not necessarily an either/or question. I used the word “atheistic” to lump secular humanism, existentialism, and nihilism together in one word. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure what I’m looking for, except that it’s “atheistic.” Moreover, the society that my protagonist isolates himself from is to be atheistic. (My protagonist is the contrasting Catholic view, who’s trying to find himself in society.) I’m really looking for philosophical views of the Self to see where I want to take the story.

Right now, I only want this to be a short story. I’m not necessarily writing it for a market, but if I’m pleased with how it turns out, I’ll probably submit it around to some editors. If you can give me some helpful suggestions for research, I’ll appreciate it.
 
OK, then, this may be a can of worms for you and your story, but in the East the word “I” (therefore self) does not necessarily mean what it does to us. It can have a much more inclusive philosophical definition that is ancient. That understanding of self is their basis for scepticism about translations of the Bible and Christian thought in general. This is because it is clear from their languages that in vital instances the word “I” in the Bible is translated, due to ignorance, into English in the personal sense as distinct from in its philosophical/metaphysical sense. It is in this philosophical sense, from their standpoint, that they reason Jesus must have used it, He being a speaker of a language and being most likely of a tradition that espoused this use. Therefore they claim that our Biblically derived understanding of “self” is innaccurate and based on a false premise. They also point out that English speakers are subject to the lens of a language that is inherently dualistic and therefore not capable of rendering this translation correctly. Robert Heinlein stated it concisely when he said that “Only the first person singular (in English) of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.” The rest of the conjugation can therefore be seen as an ad hoc mental construct invented over time to deal with the parochial appearance of things as distinct from their reality. It can be argued on this basis that the mystery religions from time immemorial were designed to experientially correct this false sense of limited self. The multiple levels of meaning in the parable form of instruction were in this tradition meant to protect the innocent and simultaneously provide a map for higher ways of understanding “self.” This is usefully explicated and referenced to the parables of Jesus in Maurice Nicol’s work The New Man.

Other reference works you might use to inquire in this direction, if you are so motivated, might be:

the writings of Franklin Merrel-Wolf
the writings of Shankara
the writings of Byron Katie
the writings of Krishnamurti
the writings of Ramana Maharshi
the writings of Merle Antoinette Roberson
the writings of Nisargadatta
the writings of Tom Harpur
a book on religious sanity by Gina Cerminara with the unfortunate and misleading title Insights for the Age of Aquarius

These writings deal with the sense and definition of self in general, and some with the philosophical implications in particular. Only thing is, they are distinctly not atheistic. They are monotheistic from another perspective. I’d recommend the last one in any case, it being a treatment of how we aquire and use thought patterns and apply them to our religious experience.
 
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I’m afraid, though, it’s not what I’m looking for. I would have to change the direction of my story to contrast varying monotheistic worldviews, which would be a tangent I don’t care to explore in this story.

It is my hope that I can show how atheism takes away from the Self to the point where humans are depleted of a purpose in life. Take away from the Self what is necessary for our existence–God–and only our human imperfections are left to guide us. This emptiness begs to be filled, but only God fits. God cries out through this emptiness. Anything else that tries to fit leads to discontentment and a perversion of God’s Will. Well, that’s the general premise I have, anyway.
 
Read some Walker Percy!

Notably his “Lost in the Cosmos”.

WP spent his adult life trying to figure what this "self " is and did it through novels. He finally came to the conclusion that the “self” is derived from the way we use language in the West.
 
That’s interesting, Beofuse. It goes with what I noted about the inability of English to correctly translate the metaphysical meaning of “I” from Sanskrit, etc. I was hoping to slip this idea in to the “atheist” catagory, as many who have spoken of this view have been called “atheists” due to the espousal of a God that has no quality of person, yet is monotheistic perhaps in even a deeper sense than practitioners of christianism understand.
 
“Evolution of Consciousness” by John Kuykenall

Goes through the layers of the mind.
 
Author_Jerry said:
It is my hope that I can show how atheism takes away from the Self to the point where humans are depleted of a purpose in life. .
Click to expand...
It doesn’t.

Any book that claims to tell you that, is a book written by a human that has never experienced athiesm.

Athiesm, is liberating and filled with meaning.

Perhaps, rather than write something about it, you could start with acknowleging, you don’t really understand it?

Perhaps your “writings” could be more an exploration of the athiest, rather than a refuting of them.

Cheers
Dame
 
I must agree with DameEdna on this one. Usually, most of the people on here and and in general operate from a two valued either/or logic and ethical system. Sin/no sin, good/bad, etc, etc. A rampant example of this is the special creation/evolution controversy. No one to my knowledge has introduced that synthesis which was put forth by Alfred Russel Wallace, a contemporary of Darwin. His independently arrived at theory of natural selection was published jointly in the journal of the Linnaeus Society in 1878. His theory included a far more encompasing and deeper interpretation than that of Darwin, but was sumarily rejected by the scientific establishment because it treated of the higher faculties of man in non-materialistic terms. This treatment in conjunction with its association with an argument for natural selection made it anathema to all camps.

Also, it is easy to find very cogent moral arguments and purposive directions from atheists that are apart from the rabid ones who may on other than reasonable grounds attack religious sytems. For instance, many of the “chistian” attitudes attributed to the Founding Fathers as we are prejudiced to think are original with them, are in fact recent additons popularized by Christian advocates.

What I’m getting at is that the theist/atheist contrast is in and of itself inadaquate as a complete picture of the possibilities from the standpoint of an abstract critique of religious considerations. Such a critique must also include a factor which makes the primary components of the religious question a three cornered hat at least. This component is rendered nearly invisible because we are, in the West, swamped with the now very dubious historicity argument of the christainists, Catholics included. This third factor is is the standpoint of the Monists, or Advaitists, or non-dualists, call them what you will.

This component introduces the argument that as distinect from the “no God” vs “God as person with an objective special creation,” there is the standpoint as well of God is ALL. In fact, a reading of Biblical passages, taking into account that in some Eastern languages the term “I” refers to Consciousness per se as distinct from the egoic “me,” it is possible to conjecture that the “historic” Jesus was Himself a Monist. This is an idea that is repugnant to Christians in general and fundamentalists in particular. Nevertheless it addresses an entirely different footing for and meaning of Divine Incarnation and the meaning of the Trinity. It is an understanding of the Divine dynamic, if you will, that I have not seen adequately treated anywhere on here from a critical standpoint.

It is important to note here that by “critical standpoint” I empahtically do NOT mean an interpretation from within the faith perspective of any religion or non-religion, and especially apart from pious nonesense. I mean a critique of the idea on its own merits, both on a historical and experiential basis. There is no shortage of either in the annals of literature.

It is also of interest that the axis of behavior that might be labeled as “good” or “ethical” is completely independent of and only appears to coincide with religion in those instances where religionists wish to use their dogma as an explanation of that “good.”

Anyway, I thought I’d just add the perception of another leg to the stool of experience we think we are sitting on, once again remembering that this standpoint is in the eyes of some, “atheist.”

Bindar Dundat
 
So which books do you recommend Detales?

Walker Percy - great writer: The Moviegoer & The Last Gentleman

Published last year: Nightwork by Thomas Glavinic. Translated from german. The premise is that a young man wakes one morning to find every single living thing gone from the world. He is completely alone. The book concerns his attempts to understand what has happened, as well as his experience as the last man alive. Do not confuse with I am Legend!! It is disturbing, challenging and enormously engaging.
“* ‘Glavinic’s masterpiece… A wondrous, big novel about the self and others, about fear and courage, about the fragility of the everyday, which only seems to wrap itself around us so firmly, and about the uncertain border between waking and dreaming.’ - Daniel Kehlmann, Der Spiegel * ‘Glavinic has created a gripping mystery - a book that leaves its readers disturbed yet happy, and full of questions.’ - Focus * ‘One of the most thrilling novels of the year… a fantastic tale about the fragility of the individual.’ - Nurnberger Zeitung”
Click to expand...
 
Hi Fran,

I have a list that I would be glad to transmit, but I think I would send it by the private message feature on here if you wish such titles. I am not taking your request lightly. This is because the exploration I undertook, after the failure of the authorized representatives of the Church to answer my empirical questions, led me on a radically different path than what a “regular” Catholic might experience. I had to undertake this journey of inquiry because of a radical shift in my awareness precipitated by an event in my high school years. I have never ceased to be grateful for the unfolding of understanding that followed, but please be advised that it is not an understanding in a theoretical or a faith based sense.

The net result put in terms acceptable on here to most, would be to say that I have found by my explorations that my own sense of Self relative to the meaning of the Bible, Sacraments, and particularly the meaning of Jesus to be profoundly revitalized on an experiential and intellectual level. All of that comes with the caveat given by one mystic who said: “The search for Reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings, for it destroys the world in which you live.” Of course he means the world as you now explain or understand it according to your current interpretations. A Biblical precedent for this feature of exploration might be Mark 4 in general, but 33, 34 in particular.

So, if you are still up for it, I will send you a bibliography. I think the general protocol in these matters is to ask three times, thus ensuring and sealing of the sincerity of the questioner. The ball is in your court.

A.
 
Dameedna said:
It doesn’t.

Any book that claims to tell you that, is a book written by a human that has never experienced athiesm.

Athiesm, is liberating and filled with meaning.

Perhaps, rather than write something about it, you could start with acknowleging, you don’t really understand it?

Perhaps your “writings” could be more an exploration of the athiest, rather than a refuting of them.

Cheers
Dame
Click to expand...
Dame, thank you for the thoughtful post. First, you ask if I should first acknowledge that I don’t really understand atheism. I came here to ask for books about the Self because I don’t understand either side’s perspective enough to write about it. I do admit, however, that my current belief is that atheism does deplete the Self of a purpose in life. Once you take away a Creator from the equation, you have only to live for living’s sake. (By “purpose,” I mean more than merely sustaining your life until the inevitable end.) So your options are either nihilism or existentialism until your death. I don’t know if I ever read this in a book or if it’s a conclusion I came to on my own.

Lastly, you suggest I explore atheism in my “writings,” rather than attempt to refute it. Well, I’m not sure what the point in that would be. I could always read about atheism instead of write about it, and it would achieve nearly the same effect: I’d learn more about it. The difference would be that writing about it is more time consuming and requires more effort; moreover, I’d still have to read about atheism before I can write about it in-depth; I’d have only my own knowledge of atheism to write about. I can see writing about atheism as being worth my time if it was to better understand my own thoughts of it, like I do with many other subjects of interest. Writing is a great way of organizing your thoughts. Since I’m still in the research and note-taking phase, I’ll probably be doing that anyway.

As of right now, my plans are to have a character in the story that has explored atheism. I’d have to understand this character before writing the story, so, really, it’s not as if I’m taking this lightly. Whatever I choose to write, I just want you to understand that there is much I don’t know, and I don’t claim to know much at all. I sit back, observe, read, write, and try to find answers. I learn more as I read and write my thoughts down and discuss them with others.

If you can tell me why you think atheism is “liberating and filled with meaning” in the context of the Self (or however you like), it might be helpful to me. Send me a private message, if you want. I’m here to learn. =)
Fran: Thank you for your recommendation! Not only could this be helpful, it also looks entertaining.
 
“The Selfhood of the Human Person” by John F. Crosby is an excellent study on this topic. It draws extensively from the work of Karol Wojtyla, Dietrich von Hildebrand and Max Scheler, among others.
 
Just remembered: another superb book on the topic is Basic Self Knowledge by Harry Benjamin. It also contains an appendix on Eternality that I have not seem matched anywhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top