What precisely Is the "self"?

[WmJackP]

If thought happened to be inchoate all our conclusions would be worthless!

IFor some folks, that is likely the case.

 

[tonyrey]

…but it is far more reasonable to believe an orderly, intelligible system which enables life and rational beings to exist is designed than a fortuitous combination of purposeless events.

Then you must also believe that mathematics is a “person” because it possesses all of the attributes of an organized and rational body.
Including insight and understanding?

No response!

Personification of the truth, wisdom and a variety of other concepts such as the wind, earth, sun, moon on and on is what our ancestors did to make sense of a world berift of tools for intellectual study. It seems to me that you carry on that tradition quite well.

It could be said with equal facility - and far more cogency - that you carry on the impersonal, mindless tradition extremely well!

No response!

The theory that thought is ultimately inanimate is inchoate!

inchoate? Most everything is, in one way or another, inchoate, I guess. Everything is in a process of hatching and rehatching. Its almosy cyclic, isn’t it?.
If thought happened to be inchoate all our conclusions would be worthless!
For some folks, that is likely the case.

“all” applies to everyone - unless you can explain how inchoate thought leads to valid conclusions. Chaos is an unsound basis for intellectual prowess!

 

[Linux]

No response!

No response!

“all” applies to everyone - unless you can explain how inchoate thought leads to valid conclusions. Chaos is an unsound basis for intellectual prowess!

. Hey Tony, “what am i”. And how absolutely ridiculous it is to think that physical cause and effect alone can come up with a meaningful and rational answer to that question!!!

Comprehension is not a physical act.

 

[tonyrey]

“all” applies to everyone - unless you can explain how inchoate thought leads to valid conclusions. Chaos is an unsound basis for intellectual prowess!

Indeed. How can anyone really believe mindless things become thinkers?

It must be one of the supreme metaphysical conjuring tricks - surpassed only by obtaining everything from nothing!

 

[levinas12]

Indeed. How can anyone really believe mindless things become thinkers?

It must be one of the supreme metaphysical conjuring tricks - surpassed only by obtaining everything from nothing!

The big question is: what are we supposed to comprehend while we’re down here on earth?

I applaud modern science for its achievements. But it doesn’t tell me why I’m here (in the sense of “what’s it all about Alfie”).

And neither does philosophy.

But philosophy knows about this question (and keeps it alive as the light grows dim in our civilization).

 

[levinas12]

Indeed. How can anyone really believe mindless things become thinkers?

It must be one of the supreme metaphysical conjuring tricks - surpassed only by obtaining everything from nothing!

I agree that comprehension cannot be explained by the physical sciences.

But philosophy has its limits too.

We all want to know why we’re here.

Not why we’re here as generic human beings.

No, why am I, Levinas12, here? Or, to put it in the language of this thread, what’s the raison d’etre for “my self”?

Philosophy cannot answer this question.

But it can keep the question alive in a time when the light grows dim.

And it can even discern that Being is not simply given, but is a gift.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree that comprehension cannot be explained by the physical sciences.

But philosophy has its limits too.

We all want to know why we’re here.

Not why we’re here as generic human beings.

No, why am I, Levinas12, here? Or, to put it in the language of this thread, what’s the raison d’etre for “my self”?

Philosophy cannot answer this question.

But it can keep the question alive in a time when the light grows dim.

And it can even discern that Being is not simply given, but is a gift.

If we are to decide by the way every reasonable person usually behaves we exist in order to choose what to believe and how to live, i.e. to develop as individuals and members of society.

John Keats believed this world is “a vale of soul-making”. He demonstrated courage and nobility of spirit in spite of his anguish and physical suffering from tuberculosis. Thanks to Joseph Severn who cared for him day and night Keats finally became serene, his eyes “burning with a sad and piercing unearthly brightness in his wasted cheeks”.

The constant handling of Fanny’s marble seemed to calm him. But more importantly, he achieved a kind of peace by considering Severn’s suffering rather than his own. He worried about the effect his illness and death would have on his friend, and tried to cheer him as best he could. ‘[T]hese bursts of wit and cheerfulness were called up on set purpose - were, in fact, a great effort on my account. I could perceive in many ways that he was always painfully alive to my situation,’ Severn later recalled. As he rushed about caring for Keats, the poet reassured him: ‘Now you must be firm for it will not last long.’

He also - suddenly and surprisingly - wanted books nearby. Severn did not understand why ‘this great desire for books came across his mind’ but ‘I got him all the books on hand’. By now, Keats was unable to read but the very presence of the books acted as a ‘charm’, Severn wrote, and he gladly collected all he could find.

It seemed he would die on Wednesday, 21 February; a new fit of coughing began and he asked Severn to hold him up so he could breathe. But he lingered on for another day. On Friday the 23rd, around four in the afternoon, Severn was roused by Keats’s call: ‘Severn - I - lift me up - I am dying - I shall die easy - don’t be frightened - be firm, and thank God it has come.’ But it did not come for another seven hours, as he rested in Severn’s arms, holding his hand. His breathing was deep and difficult, but he seemed beyond pain. Only once did he speak again, whispering, ‘Don’t breathe on me - it comes like Ice.’ Finally, near 11 o’clock he died, as though he were going to sleep.

englishhistory.net/keats/life2.html

 

[Foofaraw]

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

I define the mind as a composite entity consisting of the human brain and some of its preprocessing networks, plus an independent, non-created being akin to the religious notion of “soul” but more like Descartes’ notion of soul as mind. There is a physical connection between this entity and the brain.

With this scheme, the entire brain comprises what psychologists call the “subconscious mind.” The connected entity is the “super-conscious mind.” What we normally regard as mind is the result of composite activity, the super-conscious entity interacting with the normal human brain.

The notion of “self” seems to be more subjective, and in the context of the moment. When meditating, the “self” is, ideally, the super-conscious. When playing hockey, the self is more likely to be the brain-body system.

 

[tonyrey]

I define the mind as a composite entity consisting of the human brain and some of its preprocessing networks, plus an independent, non-created being akin to the religious notion of “soul” but more like Descartes’ notion of soul as mind. There is a physical connection between this entity and the brain.

With this scheme, the entire brain comprises what psychologists call the “subconscious mind.” The connected entity is the “super-conscious mind.” What we normally regard as mind is the result of composite activity, the super-conscious entity interacting with the normal human brain.

The notion of “self” seems to be more subjective, and in the context of the moment. When meditating, the “self” is, ideally, the super-conscious. When playing hockey, the self is more likely to be the brain-body system.

An interesting view of the mind! You are wise to reject such hopelessly simplistic reductions of reality to sense data as naturalism, physicalism, materialism, positivism and emergentism - in spite of imposing titles which merely cloak their inadequacy…

 

[Foofaraw]

An interesting view of the mind! You are wise to reject such hopelessly simplistic reductions of reality to sense data as naturalism, physicalism, materialism, positivism and emergentism - in spite of imposing titles which merely cloak their inadequacy…

Thank you! I’ve done some studies, as have you. Was your OP kind of a test, then?

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you! I’ve done some studies, as have you. Was your OP kind of a test, then?

Not at all. The “self” is such a difficult topic I’m interested to know what others think…

 

[Foofaraw]

Not at all. The “self” is such a difficult topic I’m interested to know what others think…

What’s your favorite description of self?

 

[tonyrey]

What’s your favorite description of self?

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Jesus implies that “self” refers to every aspect of our being.