What precisely Is the "self"?

[Linusthe2nd]

How do you define “the real world”?

Most philosophers since Descartes have been Idealists. Any system of Idealism, including that of Kant and the other European Idealists can only conclude in skepticism or perhaps agnosticism or atheism. Through an Idealist philosophy one concludes that either nothing exists or I cannot know that anything outside the " ego," your " self " exists.

No one can debate you because you have fallen into the trap of Descarte’s " Doubt. "

I know who I am and I know I know the real world that exists outside and beyond me.
Those are self evident facts to me and the ordinary " unschooled " man of the street. Those who feel the need to errect enormous systems of Epistomology and Psychology in the attempt to " prove " either are worse than fools.

Modern man would do better to trash Epistomology altogether. God made us with a reasoning mind, all we have to do is use it. We don’t need the approving sanction of some half insane academic to know what we know.

 

[tonyrey]

Most philosophers since Descartes have been Idealists. Any system of Idealism, including that of Kant and the other European Idealists can only conclude in skepticism or perhaps agnosticism or atheism. Through an Idealist philosophy one concludes that either nothing exists or I cannot know that anything outside the " ego," your " self " exists.

I believe Idealism is closer to the Truth than Materialism because the Ultimate Reality is not material but intangible - if one believes in God. It shouldn’t be confused with Solipsism - the theory that only oneself exists.

No one can debate you because you have fallen into the trap of Descarte’s " Doubt. "

His doubt was only the starting point of an investigation based on the fact that all our knowledge begins at home, i.e. in our minds. It certainly doesn’t start in the outside world!

I know who I am and I know I know the real world that exists outside and beyond me.

None of us knows who we are except in a superficial sense. We cannot ever claim to understand ourselves fully unless we believe we are infallible!

Those are self evident facts to me and the ordinary " unschooled " man of the street.

I’m sure no reasonable person claims to know himself or herself fully.

Those who feel the need to errect enormous systems of Epistomology and Psychology in the attempt to " prove " either are worse than fools.

A false dilemma!

Modern man would do better to trash Epistomology altogether.

Science is based on epistemological principles - without which it couldn’t exist.

God made us with a reasoning mind, all we have to do is use it.

With humility…

We don’t need the approving sanction of some half insane academic to know what we know.

Another false dilemma!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I believe Idealism is closer to the Truth than Materialism because the Ultimate Reality is not material but intangible - if one believes in God. It shouldn’t be confused with Solipsism - the theory that only oneself exists.

His doubt was only the starting point of an investigation based on the fact that all our knowledge begins at home, i.e. in our minds. It certainly doesn’t start in the outside world!
None of us knows who we are except in a superficial sense. We cannot ever claim to understand ourselves fully unless we believe we are infallible!

I’m sure no reasonable person claims to know himself or herself fully.
A false dilemma!

Science is based on epistemological principles - without which it couldn’t exist.

With humility…
Another false dilemma!

Finally, we know where you are coming from. And that explains why no one can carry on a conversation with you, you always resonrt to some form of Idealist logic. In short you have fallen into the trap of Descartes " Doubt. " In fact he found out that he could know nothing by himself, his knowledge of reality, even of himself, depended on " Enlightenment " from on High. That is just about where you are but you don’t realize it.

I wish you well but I urge you to drop this approach and start reading St. Thomas and not his commentators.

 

[GEddie]

Ok, mon ami; time to take you to task again.

1. How are “philosophers in the modern sense” distinguished from philosophers?

They are the same. A philosopher is just somebody with enough powers of persuasion to convince others that his views on life are enduring truth. The more confusing jargon he or she can use, such as “form of the good,” “quiddity,” or “overman,” so much the better.

1. What are you aware of before your thoughts, feelings and perceptions?

Before thought comes perception, but before the first perception there is only embryonic life, with no awareness. What’s your point?

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

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

. You mean “what” is more significant than “who?”
ISTM the “what” is scientifically obvious, we are physical human beings. But I thought the whole self question was to get beyond the "what."

1. How do you distinguish pseudo-philosophy from philosophy?
2. What is self-evident about the self? Can you describe it in terms every reasonable person would accept?

** The self-evidence of the self is one’s perceived being: the thinking body. Everybody is aware that they are a body, with thoughts, memories and perceptions. They don’t need a philosopher to tease those dimensions of themself apart. IMNAAHO

Shalom and ICXC NIKA **

 

[tonyrey]

I believe Idealism is closer to the Truth than Materialism because the Ultimate Reality is not material but intangible - if one believes in God. It shouldn’t be confused with Solipsism - the theory that only oneself exists.

It would be far more to the point to respond to each of my statements than making false assertions such as:

…no one can carry on a conversation with you, you always resont to some form of Idealist logic…"

• without even explaining what you mean by “some form of Idealist logic”.

Please answer this question before we proceed any further:

Do you infer the existence of material objects from your perceptions or do you have direct knowledge of material objects?

 

[tonyrey]

Ok, mon ami; time to take you to task again.

** The self-evidence of the self is one’s perceived being: the thinking body. Everybody is aware that they are a body, with thoughts, memories and perceptions. They don’t need a philosopher to tease those dimensions of themself apart. IMNAAHO

Shalom and ICXC NIKA **

Mon cher, why do you distinguish between “one” and “perceived being”? Why not simply state: “The self-evidence of the perceived thinking body is the thinking body”?

Why do we use the word “mind” at all if it is the body that thinks? Surely the mind is a redundant term if the body is a sufficient explanation…

 

[tonyrey]

1. How are “philosophers in the modern sense” distinguished from philosophers?
2. What are you aware of before your thoughts, feelings and perceptions?
3. What does a man in the street think he is?
4. How do you distinguish pseudo-philosophy from philosophy?
5. What is self-evident about the self? Can you describe it in terms every reasonable person would accept?
6. How do you define “the real world”?

Not one of these questions has been answered…

 

[GEddie]

Mon cher, why do you distinguish between “one” and “perceived being”? Why not simply state: “The self-evidence of the perceived thinking body is the thinking body”?

Why do we use the word “mind” at all if it is the body that thinks? Surely the mind is a redundant term if the body is a sufficient explanation…

Because while you have reduced the statement to a tautology, that was not my intention.

We are aware of the existence of our beings, somatic, mentational or otherwise because we perceive them. That much is obvious.

It is equally obvious to the average human being that they think, know and remember from
within their body (specifically head) and that that body keeps these processes going; a dead body has no thoughts or perceptions. No, our mind is not a body part, but it needs the body to keep it going. Teasing the dimensions of the human being apart isn’t all that informative.

ICXC NIKA

 

[clem456]

His doubt was only the starting point of an investigation based on the fact that all our knowledge begins at home, i.e. in our minds. It certainly doesn’t start in the outside world!
None of us knows who we are except in a superficial sense. We cannot ever claim to understand ourselves fully unless we believe we are infallible!

We only understand ourselves fully in God, because God knows us -first-. So paradoxically, self knowlege comes in losing one’s self.
Christianity is a foolish thing..
““Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”””

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

I would disagree with that. Christianity proposes that existence of one’s self comes out of God’s creative love. That has nothing to do with “what” we are, it is an identity, a “who”.
Maybe I am misreading, but “what” implies a competence, or a usefullness, or a position in a hierarchy, some value outside of God. “Who” implies that we have a self simply because we exist from God’s knowing us. Being known byGod makes us a unique self, a who.

5 ““Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,”"
Notice that a relationship exists before God gives us flesh. We are primarily a “who”.

So consider a human person that has no “what”…for instance a severely un-aware person from retardation or other disability…this person has full dignity as a self, because of “who” they are, a beloved child of God, not because of what they look like, or can do, or thinkabout themselves.

In an earlier post someone said that their is a split between spirit body. This is not the Catholic position. We are a unity of spirit and body.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It would be far more to the point to respond to each of my statements than making false assertions such as:

• without even explaining what you mean by “some form of Idealist logic”.

Please answer this question before we proceed any further:

Do you infer the existence of material objects from your perceptions or do you have direct knowledge of material objects?

Of course we perceive them, that’s what our senses are for. I don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else. Your comments indicate you are an Idealist. If you follow that philosophy to its logical conclusion, you cannot logically know anything for certain about any reality outside your own mind. This is true for any type of Idealist.

Your comment :

His doubt was only the starting point of an investigation based on the fact that all our knowledge begins at home, i.e. in our minds. It certainly doesn’t start in the outside world!
None of us knows who we are except in a superficial sense. We cannot ever claim to understand ourselves fully unless we believe we are infallible! This Idealism.

On the other hand:
Knowledge starts with the reality of the universe outside the mind. If it doesn’t exist, we can have no knowledge. Ergo, the existence of the external world is self evident fact which cannot be proven true or disproved. It is a given fact.

 

[Ignatius]

Aquinas does teach substance dualism. It just isn’t the same kind of dualism that Descartes teaches. The intellect is clearly something that is distinct from the body in Aquinas’ teaching.

You are your own self.

 

[tonyrey]

Because while you have reduced the statement to a tautology, that was not my intention.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you infer the existence of material objects from your perceptions or do you have direct knowledge of material objects?

The question is whether you infer the existence of material objects…

I don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else. Your comments indicate you are an Idealist.

I could equally well label you as a Materialist if you put the reality of material things before the reality of your mind!

If you follow that philosophy to its logical conclusion, you cannot logically know anything for certain about any reality outside your own mind. This is true for any type of Idealist.

The success of science is ample evidence of the reality of the material world.

Your comment :

His doubt was only the starting point of an investigation based on the fact that all our knowledge begins at home, i.e. in our minds. It certainly doesn’t start in the outside world!
None of us knows who we are except in a superficial sense. We cannot ever claim to understand ourselves fully unless we believe we are infallible! This Idealism.

Non sequitur. Do you claim to know yourself fully?

On the other hand:
Knowledge starts with the reality of the universe outside the mind. If it doesn’t exist, we can have no knowledge. Ergo, the existence of the external world is self evident fact which cannot be proven true or disproved. It is a given fact.

1. How can you possibly know the universe without knowledge of your thoughts, feelings and perceptions?
2. Precisely how is the existence of the external world self-evident?
3. Is our knowledge of the world the same as animals’ knowledge of the world?
4. If not in what way is our knowledge of the world different?

 

[tonyrey]

We only understand ourselves fully in God, because God knows us -first-. So paradoxically, self knowlege comes in losing one’s self.
Christianity is a foolish thing..

I agree!

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

I would disagree with that. Christianity proposes that existence of one’s self comes out of God’s creative love. That has nothing to do with “what” we are, it is an identity, a “who”.
Maybe I am misreading, but “what” implies a competence, or a usefullness, or a position in a hierarchy, some value outside of God.

On the contrary, it implies that we are persons created by God - as opposed to things produced by impersonal forces. “What are we?” is a philosophical question that can be applied to God as well as ourselves because it is not based on any presuppositions.

“Who” implies that we have a self simply because we exist from God’s knowing us. Being known by God makes us a unique self, a who.
5 ““Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,”"
Notice that a relationship exists before God gives us flesh. We are primarily a “who”.

So consider a human person that has no “what”…for instance a severely un-aware person from retardation or other disability…this person has full dignity as a self, because of “who” they are, a beloved child of God, not because of what they look like, or can do, or thinkabout themselves.

In an earlier post someone said that their is a split between spirit body. This is not the Catholic position. We are a unity of spirit and body.

I entirely agree!

 

[GEddie]

GEddie;10307617:

We perceive ourselves with direct awareness not with our physical senses.

That is where we disagree. To equate thoughts and perceptions with bodily functions, i.e. brain activity, is a form of materialism.

It informs us that free will cannot exist in a mindless body!

• Actually, we need our somatic senses to be fully aware of ourselves!

• A necessary connection is not an equation.

• What mindless body? A mindless body is comatose or dead. Free will requires a live, thinking body.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

• Actually, we need our somatic senses to be fully aware of ourselves!

• A necessary connection is not an equation.

• What mindless body? A mindless body is comatose or dead. Free will requires a live, thinking body.

1. Do spiritual beings need a body to be aware of themselves or have free will?
2. Does every mind need and depend on a body?
3. Is it the mind or the body that has insight, makes decisions and exercises self-control?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

1. Do spiritual beings need a body to be aware of themselves or have free will?
2. Does every mind need and depend on a body?
3. Is it the mind or the body that has insight, makes decisions and exercises self-control?

Don’t you think you are being unfair, you know what he is saying.

Obviously, the powers of the Spirit - God, Angel, soul are properly proportioned to the proper nature of the being under discussion.

Since the human soul is the form of the human body, it is the human being, the Person who performs all the functions proper to the human being. The soul, though it does perform some functions independently of the body, it cannot perform even these without the body. This is because the soul was created to be the life, intellectual principle of the Person. But unless the body’s senses function, no information comes to the soul and it is nothing but a " tabula raza. " So it is the entire Person, the composit of body and soul who senses, thinks, acts. That is what the poster is saying. And I agree. And so do you.
At least you should.

 

[levinas12]

The question is whether you infer the existence of material objects…

What we are immediately aware of is the “medium quod”, the “that which” appears, e.g., the apple on the table. What makes this awareness possible is the “medium quo”, the “that by which” we are aware. But we are never aware of the “medium quo”.

This epistemology is taken from Aristotle. In his De Anima, the “medium quo” is called the “phantasm”. We are never aware of the “phantasm”; we are only aware of the external object. Aristotle agreed that the phantasm is the “means by which” we are immediately aware of the external object. But when we perceive, we do not perceive the phantasm at all; we only perceive the external object, e.g., the apple on the table.

Aquinas continued with this distinction between “medium quo” and “medium quod”, and agreed with Aristotle that we are immediaterly aware of the “medium quod”, the apple on the table.

In modern philosophy, e.g., Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, etc, all this changed for the worse. The “medium quo” , the “phantasm” became the “medium quod”, i.e., the “that which” we are immediately aware of.

Within this scenario, we now had to “infer” the existence of the external object. A most unfortunate philosophical turn of events which created an abyss between a private cabinet of internal sensations and the outside world. an abyss which was entirely unnecessary.

What was forgotten about in modern philosophy is that the external world is always already there for us from the beginning, is primordially disclosed. We do not have to make an inference from private sense data to get to the external world. How could such an inference be carried in the first place? For example, in order to make the inference, we have to first be aware of ourselves as floating somehow outside the world? But this is not our primordial awareness of ourselves - we first become aware of ourselves by distinguishing ourselves from other selves (e.g., the baby becomes aware of itself only when it differentiates himself or herself from the mother).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What we are immediately aware of is the “medium quod”, the “that which” appears, e.g., the apple on the table. What makes this awareness possible is the “medium quo”, the “that by which” we are aware. But we are never aware of the “medium quo”.

This epistemology is taken from Aristotle. In his De Anima, the “medium quo” is called the “phantasm”. We are never aware of the “phantasm”; we are only aware of the external object. Aristotle agreed that the phantasm is the “means by which” we are immediately aware of the external object. But when we perceive, we do not perceive the phantasm at all; we only perceive the external object, e.g., the apple on the table.

Aquinas continued with this distinction between “medium quo” and “medium quod”, and agreed with Aristotle that we are immediaterly aware of the “medium quod”, the apple on the table.

In modern philosophy, e.g., Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, etc, all this changed for the worse. The “medium quo” , the “phantasm” became the “medium quod”, i.e., the “that which” we are immediately aware of.

Within this scenario, we now had to “infer” the existence of the external object. A most unfortunate philosophical turn of events which created an abyss between a private cabinet of internal sensations and the outside world. an abyss which was entirely unnecessary.

What was forgotten about in modern philosophy is that the external world is always already there for us from the beginning, is primordially disclosed. We do not have to make an inference from private sense data to get to the external world. How could such an inference be carried in the first place? For example, in order to make the inference, we have to first be aware of ourselves as floating somehow outside the world? But this is not our primordial awareness of ourselves - we first become aware of ourselves by distinguishing ourselves from other selves (e.g., the baby becomes aware of itself only when it differentiates himself or herself from the mother).

Excellent, excellent. These questions are covered in S.T., Part 1, Ques 84-89 specifically but also throughout Thomas’s works. Would highly recommend the Latin-English edition published by Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, the introductions, notes and appendexes are superb.

 

[tonyrey]

What we are immediately aware of is the “medium quod”, the “that which” appears, e.g., the apple on the table. What makes this awareness possible is the “medium quo”, the “that by which” we are aware. But we are never aware of the “medium quo”.

This epistemology is taken from Aristotle. In his De Anima, the “medium quo” is called the “phantasm”. We are never aware of the “phantasm”; we are only aware of the external object. Aristotle agreed that the phantasm is the “means by which” we are immediately aware of the external object. But when we perceive, we do not perceive the phantasm at all; we only perceive the external object, e.g., the apple on the table.

Aquinas continued with this distinction between “medium quo” and “medium quod”, and agreed with Aristotle that we are immediaterly aware of the “medium quod”, the apple on the table.

In modern philosophy, e.g., Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, etc, all this changed for the worse. The “medium quo” , the “phantasm” became the “medium quod”, i.e., the “that which” we are immediately aware of.

Within this scenario, we now had to “infer” the existence of the external object. A most unfortunate philosophical turn of events which created an abyss between a private cabinet of internal sensations and the outside world. an abyss which was entirely unnecessary.

What was forgotten about in modern philosophy is that the external world is always already there for us from the beginning, is primordially disclosed. We do not have to make an inference from private sense data to get to the external world. How could such an inference be carried in the first place? For example, in order to make the inference, we have to first be aware of ourselves as floating somehow outside the world? But this is not our primordial awareness of ourselves - we first become aware of ourselves by distinguishing ourselves from other selves (e.g., the baby becomes aware of itself only when it differentiates himself or herself from the mother).

The fact remains that we infer the existence of material objects. We cannot know things as they really are because we all perceive them differently. No two persons see things identically because what we see depends on our physiological makeup and on our upbringing and expectations.

All we see as babies is a mass of colours and shapes we gradually associate with qualities like size, distance, texture and density as the result of our experience and education. Everything we know about the world is a logical construct from what we perceive with our senses. The world is undoubtedly real because it is the cause of our physical sensations but what we make of the world is the result of reflection. That is why there are different interpretations of reality. If it were as clear as daylight there would be no scope for disagreement.

The world is disclosed to us through our senses but we alone decide what it is being disclosed. Without us nothing makes sense! Animals survive successfully - except when their instincts lead them astray - but they can’t give us the answers to our questions because they don’t have any! Our mind is what distinguishes us from the biological world…