What precisely Is the "self"?

[tonyrey]

“Myself” and “ourselves” distinguish persons from bodies but is that distinction valid? If so why? How would you define the mind?

 

[Giants]

“Myself” and “ourselves” distinguish persons from bodies but is that distinction valid? If so why? How would you define the mind?

It’s not valid. The self is an illusion. We don’t have bodies. We are bodies.

 

[Robert_Sock]

“Myself” and “ourselves” distinguish persons from bodies but is that distinction valid? If so why? How would you define the mind?

The ‘self’ is reflective consciousness. I also would say the the ‘self’ is an impostor within the mind. All that exists in the human mind is inner voices and thoughts that are [usually] conveyed by an inner voice. The mind is something that has troubled philosophers since Plato. I doubt that anybody on CAF is going to give you the straight answer you are looking for. For example, there is the unconscious (no, not the subconscious) mind that is irrational and was studied by Freud. Never does he provide a clear definition of what it is. (I believe that clearing the clutter from the unconscious will lead to increased spirituality.) The best answer I can give, which is based on my own way of thinking, is that the mind is somehow an extension of the soul. One thing that most psychologists would agree with is that there exists a mind/body split.

 

[meltzerboy]

The ‘self’ is reflective consciousness. I also would say the the ‘self’ is an impostor within the mind. All that exists in the human mind is inner voices and thoughts that are [usually] conveyed by an inner voice. The mind is something that has troubled philosophers since Plato. I doubt that anybody on CAF is going to give you the straight answer you are looking for. For example, there is the unconscious (no, not the subconscious) mind that is irrational and was studied by Freud. Never does he provide a clear definition of what it is. (I believe that clearing the clutter from the unconscious will lead to increased spirituality.) The best answer I can give, which is based on my own way of thinking, is that the mind is somehow an extension of the soul. One thing that most psychologists would agree with is that there exists a mind/body split.

This–the self and consciousness–is a never-ending topic of discussion and debate shared by psychologists, neuroscientists, philosophers, physicists, and theologians. Some early social psychologists even claimed the self doesn’t really exist, while William James and others spoke of different selves, such as the personal self and the social self. “Reflective consciousness” is as good a definition as any, and there are many definitions. A mind-body split? In a sense, Cartesian-style. But also a mind-body connection of various types according to several philosophers and psychologists.

 

[GEddie]

“Myself” and “ourselves” distinguish persons from bodies but is that distinction valid? If so why? How would you define the mind?

It is not valid because the human “self” includes the body. Children understand this, even if some pure-spirit wannabes don’t.

The “self” is a breathing mind, a thinking body.

The human mind is the cognitive process that resides in the human head, coextensive with, but not identical to, the nervous system.

ICXC NIKA

 

[meltzerboy]

I think one should also note that the definition of the self varies according to culture, and may be quite foreign to some cultures.

 

[empther]

The self is composed of static and dynamic components.

The static components are the soul and body. These never change as far as their identity is concerned.

The dynamic components are our actions. We think. We make decisions. We have desires.
But we also have habits, ways of doing thing, and in particular habits of doing good or evil.

These habits can change over a lifetime. Somebody who starts out an angel may turn into a devil and vice versa. Is such a person the same self as at the beginning? We can’t say he is. Nevertheless, he is the same body and soul and that’s what will be rewarded or punished.

When we ask, “Who’s that guy?” we want to know what he does, his accomplishments if any etc. We understand that there is a body and soul under this actor and together with what he does this is his self, his uniqueness among all human kind.

Put another way,
Aquinas says there is only one genus of human being. We all have body and souls which function identically. And so God looks at man as a social being, a part of the total human society, although individuals have their individualities. And so an infant’s baptism is legitimate because God accepts the parents’s desire as applying to the infant.
However, every angel is his own genus because he is only spirit and what he does is what he is. So every angel is on his own, and does not owe his salvation or damnation to anybody else.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“Myself” and “ourselves” distinguish persons from bodies but is that distinction valid? If so why? How would you define the mind?

The human person , created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual ( CCC 362 ). The term " soul " often refers to human LIFE or the entire human PERSON. But it also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: " soul " signifies the SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLE in man ( CCC 363 ).

Futher, the unity of the soul and the body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the " form " ( substantial form ) of the body, because it is through the spiritual soul that the body made from matter becomes a living human body. Man the PERSON is a composit of spirit and matter, a single nature composed of body and soul (CCC365 ).

Now that is all the Church teaches in the Catechism. It says nothing about Man being a rational animal. Nor does it say that the principles of the soul are Intellect and Will. Nor does it talk about " mind. " Does that mean we can hold just any old opinion we want to on these things. By no means. The Church has defended and upheld the Perinneal Philosophy of St. Thomas and the 13th century Scholastics for 800 years. In 1950 Pius XII gave a long, lively defense of this philosophy in Humani Generis which you can read here: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

St. Thomas deals with the human soul and its principles ( intellect and will ) in S.T. Part 1, Ques 75-102. A very short summary from the 24 Thomistic Theses approved by Pope Leo XIII is belos.

1. On the other hand, the human soul subsists of itself. When it can be infused into a sufficiently disposed subject, it is created by God. By its very nature, it is incorruptible and immortal.[15]
2. This rational soul is united to the body in such a manner that it is the only substantial form of the body. By virtue of his soul a man is a man, an animal, a living thing, a body, a substance and a being. Therefore the soul gives man every essential degree of perfection; moreover, it gives the body a share in the act of being whereby it itself exists.[16]
3. From the human soul there naturally issue forth powers pertaining to two orders, the organic and the non-organic. The organic powers, among which are the senses, have the composite as their subject. The non-organic powers have the soul alone as their subject. Hence, the intellect is a power intrinsically independent of any bodily organ.[17]
4. Intellectuality necessarily follows upon immateriality, and furthermore, in such manner that the father the distance from matter, the higher the degree of intellectuality. Any being is the adequate object of understanding in general. But in the present state of union of soul and body, quiddities abstracted from the material conditions of individuality are the proper object of the human intellect.[18]
5. Therefore, we receive knowledge from sensible things. But since sensible things are not actually intelligible, in addition to the intellect, which formally understands, an active power must be acknowledged in the soul, which power abstracts intelligible likeness or species from sense images in the imagination.[19]
6. Through these intelligible likenesses or species we directly know universals, i.e., the natures of things. We attain to singulars by our senses, and also by our intellect, when it beholds the sense images. But we ascend to knowledge of spiritual things by analogy.[20]
7. The will does not precede the intellect but follows upon it. The will necessarily desires that which is presented to it as a good in every respect satisfying the appetite. But it freely chooses among the many goods that are presented to it as desirable according to a changeable judgment or evaluation. Consequently, the choice follows the final practical judgment. But the will is the cause of it being the final one.[21]

Thus Thomas teaches that the intellect and will of man are not dependent upon the brain. Their proper operations are purely non-material and intellectual. Of course the soul does use the body to gather and process and store information and it governs and directs the body in all its functions since it is the life force of the body. This process begins with the senses gathering the data to be sorted and organized. This is all opposed to modern " scientific " notions of man - which have not and cannot be proven. There is also a terminology problem. I would much prefer to use the terms intellect and will in preference to " mind, " since the latter is a popular concept adopted from science and tends to associated with the material organ we know as brain. Or if you prefer we can use " intellect " alone, understanding that " will " is also a part of man’s intellectual operation.

" Self " then would be the awarness we have through the intellect that our bodily sensations/intellect/understanding/willing/remembering is done by us as a single intity or Person. So it would be incorrect to separate ourselves into body and soul - as Descartes did. For all the reasons above.

 

[Sair]

“Myself” and “ourselves” distinguish persons from bodies but is that distinction valid? If so why? How would you define the mind?

I don’t think the distinction between ‘body’ and ‘self’ is anywhere near as clear-cut as you suggest here. We all have what we call a ‘self-image’, and the body is integral to that image. The things our bodies do, the way our bodies act in the world is really the substantial basis upon which our ‘selves’ are built - we can have all the thoughts we like, but what do they mean if they do not result in action? Action requires bodies.

 

[Sair]

This–the self and consciousness–is a never-ending topic of discussion and debate shared by psychologists, neuroscientists, philosophers, physicists, and theologians. Some early social psychologists even claimed the self doesn’t really exist, while William James and others spoke of different selves, such as the personal self and the social self. “Reflective consciousness” is as good a definition as any, and there are many definitions. A mind-body split? In a sense, Cartesian-style. But also a mind-body connection of various types according to several philosophers and psychologists.

It’s unlikely there will be an end to the ‘mind-body’ discussion any time soon - not whilst Cartesian dualism is so heavily embedded in our modern collective consciousness, and whilst the belief that all we have to do is think our way out of our problems is so deeply entrenched in popular psychology.

In one sense, we have to perceive ourselves - in the sense of our being indiviudual objects in the world - as indivisible selves, as centres of action. But we also have to perceive ourselves as parts of a wider whole - as beings who affect and are affected by the environment we inhabit; and that environment includes other beings who are constrained to perceive themselves as we do. Most people grasp this, it’s true - but perhaps not to the extent that it really obtains.

It is interesting that those who insist we are really ‘souls’ merely sojourning in physical bodies for a time will also insist that there is such an integral connection between soul and body such that the soul requires a functioning body to genuinely express itself. But I guess this comes down to the constraints of evidence…

 

[Linux]

It’s not valid. The self is an illusion. We don’t have bodies. We are bodies.

Okay; where is your argument showing us that the self is in fact illusion? Surely you didn’t expect us to accept this just because you asserted it did you?

Oh, wait. Sorry, of course, your thoughts are merely the sum total of mindless undirected particles, so you really didn’t have a choice but to assert what you were physically determined to assert.

Oh drat. Of course, i forgot, there is no personal “you”. There is just a biological sack of chemicals giving us the illusion that there is a “you” freely directing abstract thoughts to a purposeful end. Goal direction in this object is merely an illusion, because it is just a bunch of undirected non-rational atoms interacting.

The question is, can i now trust what this object is saying…

 

[tonyrey]

Okay; where is your argument showing us that the self is in fact illusion? Surely you didn’t expect us to accept this just because you asserted it did you?

Oh, wait. Sorry, of course, your thoughts are merely the sum total of mindless undirected particles, so you really didn’t have a choice but to assert what you were physically determined to assert.

Oh drat. Of course, i forgot, there is no personal “you”. There is just a biological sack of chemicals giving us the illusion that there is a “you” freely directing abstract thoughts to a purposeful end. Goal direction in this object is merely an illusion, because it is just a bunch of undirected non-rational atoms interacting.

The question is, can i now trust what this object is saying…

In spite of unusual size and quantity!

 

[tonyrey]

It’s not valid. The self is an illusion. We don’t have bodies. We are bodies.

If we are bodies it doesn’t make sense to refer to “our” bodies. Bodies would belong to nobody! They would just happen to exist… words would just happen for no reason or purpose… and nothing would make sense… including:

It’s not valid. The self is an illusion. We don’t have bodies. We are bodies.

 

[tonyrey]

The ‘self’ is reflective consciousness. I also would say the the ‘self’ is an impostor within the mind. All that exists in the human mind is inner voices and thoughts that are [usually] conveyed by an inner voice. The mind is something that has troubled philosophers since Plato. I doubt that anybody on CAF is going to give you the straight answer you are looking for. For example, there is the unconscious (no, not the subconscious) mind that is irrational and was studied by Freud. Never does he provide a clear definition of what it is. (I believe that clearing the clutter from the unconscious will lead to increased spirituality.) The best answer I can give, which is based on my own way of thinking, is that the mind is somehow an extension of the soul. One thing that most psychologists would agree with is that there exists a mind/body split.

If the self is an impostor, Robert, the mind is not only unselfish but selfless or evil!

 

[tonyrey]

It is not valid because the human “self” includes the body. Children understand this, even if some pure-spirit wannabes don’t.

The “self” is a breathing mind, a thinking body.

The human mind is the cognitive process that resides in the human head, coextensive with, but not identical to, the nervous system.

ICXC NIKA

If the mind is only the cognitive process what is the source of voluntary decisions and actions?

 

[Linux]

If we are bodies it doesn’t make sense to refer to “our” bodies. Bodies would belong to nobody! They would just happen to exist… words would just happen for no reason or purpose… and nothing would make sense… including:

There is no mind-body problem. This debate was ended hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Yet dogmatic metaphysical naturalists are still trying to confuse their irreconcilable idea of reality with reality.

Its really embarrassing.

 

[tonyrey]

The self is composed of static and dynamic components.

The static components are the soul and body. These never change as far as their identity is concerned.

The dynamic components are our actions. We think. We make decisions. We have desires.
But we also have habits, ways of doing thing, and in particular habits of doing good or evil.

These habits can change over a lifetime. Somebody who starts out an angel may turn into a devil and vice versa. Is such a person the same self as at the beginning? We can’t say he is. Nevertheless, he is the same body and soul and that’s what will be rewarded or punished.

When we ask, “Who’s that guy?” we want to know what he does, his accomplishments if any etc. We understand that there is a body and soul under this actor and together with what he does this is his self, his uniqueness among all human kind.

Put another way,
Aquinas says there is only one genus of human being. We all have body and souls which function identically. And so God looks at man as a social being, a part of the total human society, although individuals have their individualities. And so an infant’s baptism is legitimate because God accepts the parents’s desire as applying to the infant.
However, every angel is his own genus because he is only spirit and what he does is what he is. So every angel is on his own, and does not owe his salvation or damnation to anybody else.

I agree with most of your statements but if a person is not the same self he was how can he be responsible for what he has done?

 

[tonyrey]

The human person , created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual ( CCC 362 ). The term " soul " often refers to human LIFE or the entire human PERSON. But it also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: " soul " signifies the SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLE in man ( CCC 363 ).

Futher, the unity of the soul and the body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the " form " ( substantial form ) of the body, because it is through the spiritual soul that the body made from matter becomes a living human body. Man the PERSON is a composit of spirit and matter, a single nature composed of body and soul (CCC365 ).

Now that is all the Church teaches in the Catechism. It says nothing about Man being a rational animal. Nor does it say that the principles of the soul are Intellect and Will. Nor does it talk about " mind. " Does that mean we can hold just any old opinion we want to on these things. By no means. The Church has defended and upheld the Perinneal Philosophy of St. Thomas and the 13th century Scholastics for 800 years. In 1950 Pius XII gave a long, lively defense of this philosophy in Humani Generis which you can read here: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

St. Thomas deals with the human soul and its principles ( intellect and will ) in S.T. Part 1, Ques 75-102. A very short summary from the 24 Thomistic Theses approved by Pope Leo XIII is belos.

1. On the other hand, the human soul subsists of itself. When it can be infused into a sufficiently disposed subject, it is created by God. By its very nature, it is incorruptible and immortal.[15]
2. This rational soul is united to the body in such a manner that it is the only substantial form of the body. By virtue of his soul a man is a man, an animal, a living thing, a body, a substance and a being. Therefore the soul gives man every essential degree of perfection; moreover, it gives the body a share in the act of being whereby it itself exists.[16]
3. From the human soul there naturally issue forth powers pertaining to two orders, the organic and the non-organic. The organic powers, among which are the senses, have the composite as their subject. The non-organic powers have the soul alone as their subject. Hence, the intellect is a power intrinsically independent of any bodily organ.[17]
4. Intellectuality necessarily follows upon immateriality, and furthermore, in such manner that the father the distance from matter, the higher the degree of intellectuality. Any being is the adequate object of understanding in general. But in the present state of union of soul and body, quiddities abstracted from the material conditions of individuality are the proper object of the human intellect.[18]
5. Therefore, we receive knowledge from sensible things. But since sensible things are not actually intelligible, in addition to the intellect, which formally understands, an active power must be acknowledged in the soul, which power abstracts intelligible likeness or species from sense images in the imagination.[19]
6. Through these intelligible likenesses or species we directly know universals, i.e., the natures of things. We attain to singulars by our senses, and also by our intellect, when it beholds the sense images. But we ascend to knowledge of spiritual things by analogy.[20]
7. The will does not precede the intellect but follows upon it. The will necessarily desires that which is presented to it as a good in every respect satisfying the appetite. But it freely chooses among the many goods that are presented to it as desirable according to a changeable judgment or evaluation. Consequently, the choice follows the final practical judgment. But the will is the cause of it being the final one.[21]

Thus Thomas teaches that the intellect and will of man are not dependent upon the brain. Their proper operations are purely non-material and intellectual. Of course the soul does use the body to gather and process and store information and it governs and directs the body in all its functions since it is the life force of the body. This process begins with the senses gathering the data to be sorted and organized. This is all opposed to modern " scientific " notions of man - which have not and cannot be proven. There is also a terminology problem. I would much prefer to use the terms intellect and will in preference to " mind, " since the latter is a popular concept adopted from science and tends to associated with the material organ we know as brain. Or if you prefer we can use " intellect " alone, understanding that " will " is also a part of man’s intellectual operation.

" Self " then would be the awareness we have through the intellect that our bodily sensations/intellect/understanding/willing/remembering is done by us as a single intity or Person. So it would be incorrect to separate ourselves into body and soul - as Descartes did. For all the reasons above.

If self is simply awareness what does self-control mean? It seems to imply that the self has power.

 

[tonyrey]

If we are bodies it doesn’t make sense to refer to “our” bodies. Bodies would belong to nobody! They would just happen to exist… words would just happen for no reason or purpose… and nothing would make sense…

For whom? The naturalists?!

The exact relationship is still a matter of dispute even among Christians.

 

[tonyrey]

“Myself” and “ourselves” distinguish persons from bodies but is that distinction valid? If so why? How would you define the mind?

I haven’t suggested anything; I have simply asked questions?
We all have what we call a ‘self-image’, and the body is integral to that image. The things our bodies do, the way our bodies act in the world is really the substantial basis upon which our ‘selves’ are built - we can have all the thoughts we like, but what do they mean if they do not result in action?

Mental activity is more significant than physical actions.

Action requires bodies.

There is no evidence that **all **mental activity has a physical origin requires bodies…