What precisely Is the "self"?

[BrunoMaria]

No one can understand how persons and things originated … Whatever the self may be it is certainly not an insignificant quirk of chemical units which are the antipodes of rational individuals…

I understood the question not a what we are made of, but how and why we are. The “to be or not to be” seems the question the world ever since first humans where created circles around.
Though we do know very well how and why we where created, as the Bible tells us explicitly. The question seems rather to concentrate on the very “I” which - though all got this very “I” only every single person experiences such “I” on and in himself. Adding, that we humans are the one and only living “thing” who realized this “I”. But realizes it as something " incomprehensible ".
But is it really incomprehensible? Actually it’s not as soon as we realize that this “I” doesn’t exist without the “GOD AND I”
God not just created the very >I< with every single person God wanted to live; God also gave HIMSELF – God the Holy Spirit - with it and to it – to this “I”. But since we got a free will to decide (for or against God), this of course becomes the one and only truth there is, as soon and only then, when we believe in God and choose to live with and in God - according to Jesus’ word in John 14,17: the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; you know Him, for He dwells with you, and will be in you.

Atheists like Nitzsche or J.P Satre and the lot kept asking and even cementing in today’s common mind terribly simple and vacuous theorems, which actually leave people clueless and in a resigning “we’ll never know”, such as Descartes “ever so enlightening” dogma: >Cogito ergo sum< (I think and therefore I am). What a silly answer! It skips God, steers in a wide circle around God, and simply determines that “I am” in a manner Hamlet asked too – untouched by any thought of God.

Why doesn’t the world finally understand, that all explanations for all there is and all we are and why we are, are clearly described in the Bible.

Yours
Bruno

 

[levinas12]

Our concepts of heaven are quite different but that is a topic for another thread. We agree that the self is a reality and not merely a word.

I agree.

To stay on topic, consider this issue. Some philosophers (e.g., Locke) hold that self-identity is dependent on memories. This comes up especially when discussing how the self can remain the same over a period of time.

Question: is the self more or less the person? This question becomes complicated if self-identity is dependent on memories. Because, if that’s true, we encounter some thorny moral issues, e.g., is the zygote a person?

This can be generalized. According to Jacques Lacan, babies do not have unified selves at birth. They must pass through the mirror-stage where they “recognize” (actually, “mis-recognize”) themselves. Before that moment, babies are just a chaos of drives…

Of course, I totally disagree with Lacan. But there are many people who believe that newly born babies don’t start off with selves (so it’s not just a question of zygotes). Babies only become “selves” or “persons” later on in their extra-uterine development. I think Pete Singer subscribes to this position.

So the question of “self” has some real-world consequences.

Maybe we should sever the connection between “self” or “person” and “self-awareness” or “self-consciousness”. “My self” is already there before the “cogito” (or “language” or “memory”) comes into play.

But now we seem to be back to square one. What precisely is the “self”? And why do we human beings have a “self” in the first place? A lot of other beings don’t seem to have “one”.

It’s all very mysterious indeed.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree.

To stay on topic, consider this issue. Some philosophers (e.g., Locke) hold that self-identity is dependent on memories. This comes up especially when discussing how the self can remain the same over a period of time.

Question: is the self more or less the person? This question becomes complicated if self-identity is dependent on memories. Because, if that’s true, we encounter some thorny moral issues, e.g., is the zygote a person?

This can be generalized. According to Jacques Lacan, babies do not have unified selves at birth. They must pass through the mirror-stage where they “recognize” (actually, “mis-recognize”) themselves. Before that moment, babies are just a chaos of drives…

Of course, I totally disagree with Lacan. But there are many people who believe that newly born babies don’t start off with selves (so it’s not just a question of zygotes). Babies only become “selves” or “persons” later on in their extra-uterine development. I think Pete Singer subscribes to this position.

So the question of “self” has some real-world consequences.

Maybe we should sever the connection between “self” or “person” and “self-awareness” or “self-consciousness”. “My self” is already there before the “cogito” (or “language” or “memory”) comes into play.

But now we seem to be back to square one. What precisely is the “self”? And why do we human beings have a “self” in the first place? A lot of other beings don’t seem to have “one”.

It’s all very mysterious indeed.

Folks who have no exposure to philosophy would say we are all nuts. It seems that it is only " philosophers " who don’t know who they are !

 

[tonyrey]

Folks who have no exposure to philosophy would say we are all nuts. It seems that it is only " philosophers " who don’t know who they are !

It isn’t a question of who we are but what distinguishes us as persons as opposed to animals…

 

[tonyrey]

To stay on topic, consider this issue. Some philosophers (e.g., Locke) hold that self-identity is dependent on memories. This comes up especially when discussing how the self can remain the same over a period of time.

Then amnesiacs cease to be persons!

Question: is the self more or less the person? This question becomes complicated if self-identity is dependent on memories. Because, if that’s true, we encounter some thorny moral issues, e.g., is the zygote a person?

Why not an undeveloped person?

This can be generalized. According to Jacques Lacan, babies do not have unified selves at birth. They must pass through the mirror-stage where they “recognize” (actually, “mis-recognize”) themselves. Before that moment, babies are just a chaos of drives…

Of course, I totally disagree with Lacan. But there are many people who believe that newly born babies don’t start off with selves (so it’s not just a question of zygotes). Babies only become “selves” or “persons” later on in their extra-uterine development. I think Pete Singer subscribes to this position.

So the question of “self” has some real-world consequences.

Indeed. It’s a highly convenient excuse for abortion!

Maybe we should sever the connection between “self” or “person” and “self-awareness” or “self-consciousness”. “My self” is already there before the “cogito” (or “language” or “memory”) comes into play.

That seems the most logical view. Any other position is arbitrary.

But now we seem to be back to square one. What precisely is the “self”? And why do we human beings have a “self” in the first place? A lot of other beings don’t seem to have “one”. It’s all very mysterious indeed.

It’s very mysterious because it concerns the ultimate nature of reality. Yet those who stake everything on scientific explanation are in the same boat because they cannot account for the existence of impersonal objects. The significant difference is that we are persons aware of the problem but objects are not! (An idea taken from Pascal who remarked that in spite of its immensity the universe doesn’t know we exist whereas we know the universe exists.)

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

William Blake - Auguries of Innocence

The insight of a mystic…

The whole poem is well worth reading in spite of its swipe at “lame philosophy”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It isn’t a question of who we are but what distinguishes us as persons as opposed to animals…

I didn’t realize that was the question, when did that crop up ? The Catechism tells us we are made in God’s image, a composite of body and soul, which is an immortal spirit, the source and principle of our life, intelligence and free will, the form of Man.

The only place the Catechism speaks of animals is #s 2415-2418. From this we may conclude that animals are not made in God’s image, they do not have intelligence or free will, they do not have an immortal soul. Anything else about their nature we must learn from science and philosophy. St. Thomas says a few things to say I think in De Anibilibis and De Anima.

 

[tonyrey]

I didn’t realize that was the question, when did that crop up ? The Catechism tells us we are made in God’s image, a composite of body and soul, which is an immortal spirit, the source and principle of our life, intelligence and free will, the form of Man.

The only place the Catechism speaks of animals is #s 2415-2418. From this we may conclude that animals are not made in God’s image, they do not have intelligence or free will, they do not have an immortal soul. Anything else about their nature we must learn from science and philosophy. St. Thomas says a few things to say I think in De Anibilibis and De Anima.

I share those beliefs of course but on a Philosophy forum they need to be substantiated…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I share those beliefs of course but on a Philosophy forum they need to be substantiated…

May have made a mistake in my last post. The work is De Animalibus by Aristotle and I couldn’t find that Thomas wrote a commentary on it. Though I think he did cite it more than once. However, Boethius and others have commented on that work. If interested, they may be available for online viewing.

 

[GEddie]

I’d say that “self” is only significant to the “owner,” as unlike the body, life, or behavior, it is indiscernible to anybody else.

Therefore, I for one have no problem linking “self” to memories or mentations (the thinking body), and the issue of babies and “self” is beside the point.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

I’d say that “self” is only significant to the “owner,” as unlike the body, life, or behavior, it is indiscernible to anybody else.

Therefore, I for one have no problem linking “self” to memories or mentations (the thinking body), and the issue of babies and “self” is beside the point.

ICXC NIKA

Is it indiscernible to God - given that one believes in God?

 

[GEddie]

Is it indiscernible to God - given that one believes in God?

I’d say the self is only self-discernible.

Good question though. I’m not sure.

Why is this an issue? Is it because of the Question about self and nonthinking beings, eg infants?

Since anybody who can think about themself is well beyond that point, I’m not sure it matters.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

I’d say the self is only self-discernible.

Good question though. I’m not sure.

Why is this an issue? Is it because of the Question about self and nonthinking beings, eg infants?

Since anybody who can think about themself is well beyond that point, I’m not sure it matters.

ICXC NIKA

It seems an issue because you stated that the self is only significant to the “owner” - which seems to undermine its significance to anyone else! I’m probably misinterpreting what you understand by “significant”…

 

[levinas12]

An idea taken from Pascal who remarked that in spite of its immensity the universe doesn’t know we exist whereas we know the universe exists.

And the universe doesn’t know that it “itself” exists.

To follow along with your remarks - it is amazing that there are selves at all. A quark does not have a self. Neither does an electron or any of the other entities physics studies.

Again, why do I regard a certain specific body as “mine”?

As far as I know, the hard sciences can’t help us here.

 

[GEddie]

And the universe doesn’t know that it “itself” exists.

Although some people on this sub-forum may argue otherwise.

To follow along with your remarks - it is amazing that there are selves at all. A proton does not have a self. Neither does a photon, or quark, or all the other entities physics studies.

Again, why do I regard my body as “mine”? Is this just a last vertige of late capitalism or is there something more ontological going on?

No, it’s older than capitalism. A human body isn’t property, after all.

I think like most other quandaries in human life, mind/body has its origins in the brutality that is human death. Ontologically, we are our bodies; literally everything we experience in our life is experienced via the body; when we interact with someone, we do so via the voice, visible expressions, or hand-made symbols generated by that body. We cannot connect to another mind without the mediation of at least the two bodies.

But death throws our entire sense of being into an empty skull; if we identify fully with our bodies, then the “self” is meaningless, as it is anchored to a doomed lump of matter. So for our psychological survival, we have learned to adopt a sense of “self” that can exclude the body.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, it’s older than capitalism. A human body isn’t property, after all.
ICXC NIKA

I have always found it interesting that capitalism, as a total social system based on the assumed concept of “individual property”, sprang from christian culture. Further (I may get shot down for suggesting this) the beachhead seems to have been values crystalised more in Protestant Christianity.

Catholicism, even when realised in corrupt leaders, has always (or used to) hold dear to the value that we exist communally and have communal responsibilities to one another, esp in hard times. Individualism and the inalienable right of individuals to their property has never sat well with Catholics. Monastic communities lived by this Rule (no wonder monasticism was rejected by many Reformers). Is it a surprise then that the beginning and worst excesses of the Industrial revolution (which was based on rescinding the loyalties of Lords to their landed tenants so they could be released off land and turned into autonomous “free” labourers to feed city factories or replaced by machines)…was in England.

As you imply, we are but stewardsof all we “possess” and there is One to whom we must ultimately give account. Our true homeland is not upon the earth.

There is no doubt that Christianity did much to advance a correct understanding of the individual and the self, freeing souls from the tyranny of tribalism. However since the Reformation/Enlightenment and rise of laissez faire capitalism it seems the pendulum has swung too far.

But I rave .

 

[tonyrey]

And the universe doesn’t know that it “itself” exists.

To follow along with your remarks - it is amazing that there are selves at all. A quark does not have a self. Neither does an electron or any of the other entities physics studies.

Again, why do I regard a certain specific body as “mine”?

As far as I know, the hard sciences can’t help us here.

“hard” is by far the best description of the sciences I have encountered! They are inhuman and inhumane in the absence of philosophy and religion. They certainly do not recognise the existence of a self, mind, person or soul…

Are there “soft” sciences?

 

[tonyrey]

I have always found it interesting that capitalism, as a total social system based on the assumed concept of “individual property”, sprang from christian culture. Further (I may get shot down for suggesting this) the beachhead seems to have been values crystalised more in Protestant Christianity.

Catholicism, even when realised in corrupt leaders, has always (or used to) hold dear to the value that we exist communally and have communal responsibilities to one another, esp in hard times. Individualism and the inalienable right of individuals to their property has never sat well with Catholics. Monastic communities lived by this Rule (no wonder monasticism was rejected by many Reformers). Is it a surprise then that the beginning and worst excesses of the Industrial revolution (which was based on rescinding the loyalties of Lords to their landed tenants so they could be released off land and turned into autonomous “free” labourers to feed city factories or replaced by machines)…was in England.

Subsequent to the dissolution and destruction of the monasteries to fill the coffers of a king who had been honoured as a Defender of the Faith prior to his apostasy in order to divorce his wife and marry a woman who was in due course beheaded at his behest…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I share those beliefs of course but on a Philosophy forum they need to be substantiated…

I disagree. This whole question came up with Descartes who was a mad-man ( my opinion). Philosophers in the modern sense have been mad ever sense. A man in the street who has no knowledge of philosophy or sophist psychologies has no trouble in knowing who he is. And he will tell you so in no uncertain terms if you challenge him.

You guys have no corner on human thought just because you happen to be in some pseudo-philosophy or psychology class. There is no philosophical bases to this question. The so called " self " is a self evident fact. If you reject it you will become lost in the madness of Descartes, Locke, Kant and hundreds of others because they all rejected the possibility of man to know the real world.

 

[tonyrey]

I disagree. This whole question came up with Descartes who was a mad-man ( my opinion). Philosophers in the modern sense have been mad ever sense.

1. How are “philosophers in the modern sense” distinguished from philosophers?
2. What are you aware of before your thoughts, feelings and perceptions?

A man in the street who has no knowledge of philosophy or sophist psychologies has no trouble in knowing who he is. And he will tell you so in no uncertain terms if you challenge him.

The issue is not who he is but what he is.

1. What does a man in the street think he is?

You guys have no corner on human thought just because you happen to be in some pseudo-philosophy or psychology class.

1. How do you distinguish pseudo-philosophy from philosophy?

There is no philosophical bases to this question. The so called " self " is a self evident fact. If you reject it you will become lost in the madness of Descartes, Locke, Kant and hundreds of others because they all rejected the possibility of man to know the real world.

1. What is self-evident about the self? Can you describe it in terms every reasonable person would accept?

 

[tonyrey]

The so called " self " is a self evident fact. If you reject it you will become lost in the madness of Descartes, Locke, Kant and hundreds of others because they all rejected the possibility of man to know the real world.

How do you define “the real world”?