HouseOfSteak t1_jas0dxn wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:18 PM

>Solidifying your “self” — what kind of person you are, your ideal preferences, your becoming, is always dangerous. That’s how Hitler went his own way and destroyed a whole “race”.

......What.

Billions of people build a foundation for who they are and become confident that their 'self' is who they are, and pretty much every one of those billions has not decided that they should exterminate an entire race of people.

Hitler didn't go killing off tens of millions because he had some idea of who he was, he did that so he could control hundreds of millions of people.

>Wars and conflicts will never stop as long as ego prevails, it is the nature of cancer cells, invasive plants, and deadly plagues.

Except those three don't possess egos, let alone a concept of what a 'self' is, they just do as they're mindlessly designed to do. Kinda the opposite of establishing self-conception.

It doesn't help that Buddhism, which this article references multiple times, is just as guilty as other faiths and philosophies when it comes to violations against others in spite of its beliefs about the self. Belief in a 'one true god' or not clearly isn't affecting the violent nature that humans have a bothersome tendency to possess.

Plenty of people who subscribe to the concept of having a self go on to lead completely non-violent lives, even after learning and understanding the concepts of the unimportance of a self and deciding that belief structure isn't for them. Similarly, people who belief that the self doesn't exist or is irrelevant may also go on to hurt other people regardless of what they believe to have learned and follow.

Skyreaper71 t1_jato2eq wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:01 AM

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

plssirnomore t1_jav7cwy wrote on March 4, 2023 at 9:03 AM

You say cancer doesn't have self knowledge or ego, but then claim Buddhism and religions can commit violations?

Consider that even though people with a self can live without committing physical violence, the reality of transgression against others are not just physical. There are 7 sins, violence being one. Physical reality is not the only place these violations can take place. Do you believe that 2 people who commit 0 violent acts in waking life, with one dreaming about rape, murder, domination, and the other dreaming about liberation of all beings are one and the same? Is the appearance of something, perceived by other conditioned egos, the totality of that things essence?

The real nature of the teachings as I understand them are that when you realise no self, you realise you are everything and everything is you. The person insulting you, the attractive woman, the merchant, the beggar are all consciousness trapped within matter, conditioned by samsara, acting out karma unconsciously. All transgressions come from ignorance of truth. All suffering comes from straying from the path of the creator. This is Satan, the ego, the desire to live in FREEDOM, outside of the divine reality of existence.

The belief that as an intellectual animal, distracted by 1000 things, you have the wisdom to make choices without harming others or yourself, is delusional. The man who discovered electricity that lets us read at night, is also responsible for the murder of children. Please realise that every thought or action you take, has a cause, and will have an effect. You, as an animal that can think, may not actually have the intelligence to discern even 1% of what objective reality is. The belief that you do is an ego, conditioned by a worldview prescribed to you since birth, within an economic, societal structure, all saturated in the arrogant BELIEF that materialist scientific dogma is the be all and end all of understanding existence.

itsdoctorlee t1_jatg8bs wrote on March 3, 2023 at 11:03 PM

This doesn't look to be what the article is arguing about at all. The thesis is not about having or not having a self, it is about whether that idea of self projected from your brain is important and deserves to be cared for. There is this pervasive misunderstanding that not caring about the self so much equals to being mindless or having no self-awareness.

A genuine question for you, how do you know you are not mindlessly behaving if all you have is your confident self?

Also, I have bad news for you if you think cells/plants don't have cognition or self-awareness, whatever it is. Check out Michael Levin's work and see if you would come back to say the same things with such confidence.

Amanifolda t1_javnqyy wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:44 PM

Ok, some Buddhists people in the past committed crimes and so the whole philosophy of Buddhism should be discredited and have nothing to learn from? That's not how it works bro. This sounds a lot like some Homo sapiens did horrible things in the past, so all humans are sinful and should be discredited.

Another logical fallacy: many people have developed a strong pride of self as you mentioned, and many of those same people did not do bad things -> So A must be there to cause, or is a necessary condition of B, and without A means more crimes.

waytogoal OP t1_jas1qcr wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:27 PM

Then you might have misunderstood. One could develop confidence by doing meaningful things and focusing on the real-world effects of your actions, not by thinking about what successful people they are and should grow into.

Did I say there are a billion Hitlers? I exactly wrote most aren't even close, but adding the small egos of billions still wreak havoc. The biosphere collapse is the best evidence.

I don't know what you mean by "Hitler didn't go killing off tens of millions because he had some idea of who he was, he did that so he could control hundreds of millions of people." "Self" means that "master" inside his head controlling his world view, that's that.

HouseOfSteak t1_jas91gp wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:14 PM

It's....honestly just better to have never included that. The argument of "Do you know who ALSO shared <this attribute>? HITLER!" is a tired one that has little validity, and your paper would not suffer from its exclusion. It doesn't help that this came out of relative nowhere - I certainly wasn't expecting to be hit with that - and then was never referenced again.

The paragraphs before this considers the ideas of working with bad data which when processed without consideration of its validity would paint an incorrect picture. The next paragraph considers the importance of what you do, rather then how you think-

-Do you know how had a solid sense of self? Hitler!-

-The paragraph after the reference refers to how humanity is well, fucked, if it doesn't recognize the concept of interdependence. Which ignores the collectivized thinking of the Nazi system, considering how it disincentivized individual thought over what was for the supposed good of the whole....which to them was the supposed German race. Which is interesting to consider, in that the man on top could very well be a megalomaniac, but the millions that supposedly held his ideals had their individuality and self crushed into something that another wanted, rather than allowed them to come to such conclusions about who they are themselves.

Taking a very common personality trait (The formation of a solid ideal of the self) that can be found in the broad majority of people and associating it to one man who, outside of his speeches, book, and third-party sources we know relatively little about how he thought, and linking the two together isn't a very solid foundation.

Now, there's megalomania (which Hitler likely possessed considering his mannerisms) in which does require the exaltation of the self to a point beyond simple egomania, but the vast, vast majority of people do not exhibit megalomania (nor even garden-variety egomania) just because they've decided on who they are.

waytogoal OP t1_jasde4g wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:42 PM

Reading the passage about Nazi made me think you have completely missed the point. Nazis are exactly about not caring others, our interdependence and expanding a unitary self (thinking it is the right and important thing). That's why I also mention solidifying "self", "us", "One true God" are similarly dangerous.

Also, you seem to have developed a strawman subconsciously for the sake of winning the argument. I never once mentioned that everyone is Hitler, I just wrote it is clear that one of the factors that contributed to Hitler's insanity is self-importance and glorifying his own way of thinking. The latter is dangerous, not just in Hitler's way, but also manifested in narcissistic, anti-enviromentalist behaviors... the list goes on.

You also seem to have conflated that giving importance to "self" means one is a thinking, responsible person, whereas if we focus on our actions, we "stop thinking" anymore. Caring about your actions exactly makes you think about the right thing - the consequence of your actions, As humans we always think, but we need to prioritise thinking certain things over others.

Johannes--Climacus t1_jat3kfo wrote on March 3, 2023 at 9:34 PM

Nazis Are absolutely about caring for others, acting in service of your volk is the most honorable ways to act. They weren’t interested in American b style individualism, but rather a particular group identity

You also only address the most shape conception of the self, but the existentialists (especially Kierkegaard) remind us that the essence of the self is found in your relationships and love for others. The development of the self comes first, they say, but who are you if not someone who does good for the people they love? In this conception of the self, selfishness results in the loss of the very self it aimed to improve

waytogoal OP t1_jb01fcu wrote on March 5, 2023 at 11:32 AM

Now, I know where our communication problem arises. I think there are a lot of confusions, some people talk about selfish vs. selfless, some other people talk about having a strong sense of individual self vs. having no individual self (even in your comment first vs. second paragraph). An "individual self" is an entity having a coherent goal and desire. My discussion is more of the latter (although the two are somewhat related). Also, you have a similar logic as another commenter, basically saying that any "groupist" ideology that suppresses "individual rights" means eliminating the "selfs" in its partsand hence is "selfless" (I think it has to do with the language used by historical sociology texts).

To your other point. If you already recognize that the true essence of self is relational and an interconnected whole, why need to glorify it (which is the point)? it is what it is already. And do you really think this is how the majority of people think about "self"?

Johannes--Climacus t1_jbcrh0b wrote on March 8, 2023 at 2:37 AM

> do you really think this is how the majority of people think about “self”?

No existentialist in the history of philosophy has held that most people are existentialists.

I didn’t mean the self was entirely relational, i said the essence can be found in relations. no existentialist would say that the self is defined by its relations, the self is defined by values — but obviously relations and values will interact, and for a Christian existentialist like Kierkegaard examination of your most important relationship will reveal a an agapic love which underlies the Christian’s existence

But even if I did hold that the self is entirely relational, you’d still need the self because without it, what are other people in relation with if not some particular “I”? A wife might be disappointed to discover she’s not actually married to anyone in particular!

[deleted] t1_jatlnxt wrote on March 3, 2023 at 11:43 PM

[deleted]

waytogoal OP t1_jas54sw wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:49 PM

Since you edited, let me respond to your other point: cancer cells, invasive plants, and deadly plagues are exactly about a unitary "self" expanding and is behaving as if it is the most important thing (think about their genetic information). Ego is a metaphor. I think you are missing the whole point if you can't catch that.

That's why the article says "self" is unimportant (you can argue all day whether it exists, everyone has their definition). Emphasizing on the idea of "self" exactly limits your worldview.

Fishermans_Worf t1_jaszty0 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 9:09 PM

>cancer cells, invasive plants, and deadly plagues are exactly about a unitary "self" expanding and is behaving as if it is the most important thing

I'm not sure how you classify those as "unitary selves".

They each strike me as a collectives of units each behaving selflessly entirely according to their nature. A cancer cell does not decide to divide. It's just random damage. A seed does not decide to land in virgin soil or in it's home environment. A plague might not even be alive—viruses aren't even living things, let alone self indulgent. That's why they're so effective.

It makes sense to me we'd each see the metaphor completely differently, coming from two fundamentally different worldviews.

You may see their collective behaviour as analogous to the actions of an individual—but I say they are better representations of a culture that does not value individuality or allow freedom of choice. Each example mindlessly consumes without conscious self interest. That's not a model of individuality, it's a model of conformity.

An individual has the capacity for destruction through self glorification, but a culture that does not value individuality cannot change. The world is change, and a unchanging culture inevitably glorifies itself in the same irrational destructive way.

In between we find a better balance. Stability and change—liberal and conservative—push and pull. The individual has a self—recognized or not. The individual is part of the collective—recognized or not.

A sense of self need not be fixed to be strong—a healthy sense of self includes the ability to recognize and guide change. It sure helps to know where you are if you want to get somewhere else.

Balance comes when we recognize and glorify both—the individual as a vital part of the collective and the collective as a group of diverse individuals with a shared purpose. The individualist and collectivist views aren't just compatible, they need to be integrated or each only half works.

waytogoal OP t1_jat4dkf wrote on March 3, 2023 at 9:40 PM

"They each strike me as a collectives of units each behaving selflessly"They don't behave "selflessly", selfless means "concerned more with the needs and wishes of others". If they are selfless they would not go on to hurt and engulf others, I think you want to say "mindlessly" and may have been muddled because this discussion is being dragged into a strawman of "whether self exists" and "whether everyone is a Hitler just by recognizing the self", when all this article suggest is there is no need to glorify and give importance to it.

"Self" is broadly a coherent unit of things that have a common thought and goal. e.g., how your immune system recognizes self and non-self is by the different goals of pathogens and your body cells. That's why the 20-years-ago you seem like a stranger - because you have different thoughts and goals.

I think you have also confused the image of self (that is now owning your goals/thoughts/monologue) as your consciousness and that's why you think intelligence or responsible behavior must be born from that certain idea of self (e.g., believing that I am a moral person), when you can go the pragmatic way and be conscious with the consequence of your actions directly. That you are conscious about actions is more powerful than you are conscious about a certain idea of who you are.

Fishermans_Worf t1_jatk2jh wrote on March 3, 2023 at 11:31 PM

>"They each strike me as a collectives of units each behaving selflessly"They don't behave "selflessly", selfless means "concerned more with the needs and wishes of others". If they are selfless they would not go on to hurt and engulf others, I think you want to say "mindlessly" and may have been muddled because this discussion is being dragged into a strawman of "whether self exists" and "whether everyone is a Hitler just by recognizing the self", when all this article suggest is there is no need to glorify and give importance to it.

I think we might be divided by a common vocabulary. I didn't mean mindlessly, I meant selflessly. I could have said mindlessly but I wanted to drive in the point that all things that are mindless are selfless.

"Concerned more with the needs and wishes of others" is a definition that can only only apply to things that are capable of being concerned. A cancer cell acts selflessly because it is incapable of reflecting upon its actions. It cannot be concerned with its own needs because it's incapable of forming that concern. A tidal wave is selfless—it has no sense of self.

The root definition of selflessly is "without regard to self" and that does not require a conscious choice. In the absence of a conscious mind, there is only selflessness. There is selfishness in a conscious mind—even one that exists in a pantheistic universe because there are selfish needs and selfish qualities to the conscious experience.

We can recontextualize those needs by looking at ourselves solely through the context we are part of a greater whole—but it seems intuitively harmful to deny one aspect of nature in favour of another when we can reconcile them. Why seek domination when harmony is possible?

>"Self" is broadly a coherent unit of things that have a common thought and goal. e.g., how your immune system recognizes self and non-self is by the different goals of pathogens and your body cells. That's why the 20-years-ago you seem like a stranger - because you have different thoughts and goals.

Self generally refers to the concept of self awareness. The self mediation of a thinking being that seems to exists in an external world but can only perceive that external world through an internal representation. Your immune system has no sense of self. It has no concept of concern-it only has triggers. It has no concept of goals-it has actions and limits. You might have the wrong word for what you're trying to get across.

>I think you have also confused the image of self (that is now owning your goals/thoughts/monologue) as your consciousness and that's why you think intelligence or responsible behavior must be born from that certain idea of self (e.g., believing that I am a moral person), when you can go the pragmatic way and be conscious with the consequence of your actions directly. That you are conscious about actions is more powerful than you are conscious about a certain idea of who you are.

I haven't, I just see them as inseparable due to the nature of how we physically work. I don't even believe we're individual beings. I'm a traditionally pantheistic Stoic and I see us as manifestations of a single universal being. My morality attempts a cosmic perspective. But we also manifest as individuals—and while I believe our actions should be guided towards selflessness—we experience a sense of self. If the universe has created individual awarenesses, each with a sense of self, it's natural and right to revel in our sense of self just as it's natural and right to revel in the reality that we are made for cooperation. Both are natural miracles.

To act correctly we must accept all that is true, and that includes our current nature. I cannot pick up a glass without knowing my body. I cannot guide my future self to act effectively without knowing my current self.

Again, I suspect we might be divided by a common vocabulary. I sort of pick up what you're saying and I don't think it's too different from what I believe-you just get there through a different context. Cheers!

waytogoal OP t1_jatsyko wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:39 AM

Fair point, might have been a vocabulary issue, also it is not easy to reply to so many people so I probably have some hasty typing mistakes.

But now I am curious, do you think the individuals inside Nazi Germany are "selfless" then? (According to some other comments, they are). I think this is where the vocab issue arises, where some commenters described group/collectives as equating "selfless". (And what is not a group?)

Also, you might have designed too many categorical buckets about what things have self-awareness/ are conscious and what things aren't. I think it is way more contentious than you think it is (heck, you don't even know whether I am actually conscious the same way as you), plus I don't think any serious biologist would claim cells have no "goal". Now a bit of rephrasing, would you agree an entity having a coherent goal/desire is the requirement to form a "self"?

Moreover, it is not about an all-or-nothing full denial or acceptance, this article is never about arguing the "self" doesn't exist at all. It is full of statements like "you ARE probably more versatile and adaptive than you think."; "The minimal useful concept of “self” is simply recognizing that one is an amazing, versatile being capable of doing great things"

To address your last part, many things are "natural", do we have the mental resources to give equal importance to all things natural? Is the current level of glorification of self "natural" (a matter of degree and extent rather than all-or-nothing)? At what level is considered not natural? e.g., Human procreation can be either natural or unnatural, it is the level of it that defines it. These are some questions worth thinking about.

Fishermans_Worf t1_jau9tv2 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:55 AM

>But now I am curious, do you think the individuals inside Nazi Germany are "selfless" then?

Fascism is an ideology that does not respect the individual self in favour of the group. It's brutally selfish towards outsiders, and brutally selfless within.

A biologist will say a cell has a goal—but they don't mean it in the same way that a person has a goal nor do they mean it in the way an organization has a goal.

If this is applicable, translating concepts from one culture to another is incredibly difficult because so much of the context is lost. if you're putting an argument forwards, it's valuable to try and define every important term you use. Doubly so if you're translating ideas across cultures. The more central a concept is to your essay, the more of the essay I'd spend defining exactly what you're talking about.

waytogoal OP t1_jazyj03 wrote on March 5, 2023 at 10:51 AM

I think I start to see where the problem might have arisen. Let's focus back into the "individuals" inside Nazis and forget about whether "Fascism" as an ideology is respecting selfs.

Hitler is a self-conscious individual who did a lot of thinkings himself and thus cannot be described as "selfless", agree? The next guy, let's name him Joe, confidently believes in Nazi ideology or the bollock from Hitler and had thought about it thoroughly. Is he selfless?...

I think the problem is that you implicitly assumed an ideology (e.g., fascism, communism) not respecting "individual rights" would eliminate the "self" in its part. (I know sociology texts made a lot subtle statements that groupist equate no self and might have subtly influenced in how we communicate)

Now, read your own statement again "It's brutally selfish towards outsiders, and brutally selfless within." and apply it to you. Your cells are brutally selfless within (the requirement of developing you, the yourself), but it might or might not be selfless towards the outside, agree?

VitriolicViolet t1_jaymc26 wrote on March 5, 2023 at 2:00 AM

>That's why the 20-years-ago you seem like a stranger - because you have different thoughts and goals.

they are no stranger, why would they be?

the 'self' is merely the sum of all ones experiences, memories, environment, genes, neurons etc.

my actions and who i think i am are one and the same.

literallymetaphoric t1_jaw4kxx wrote on March 4, 2023 at 3:12 PM

Your definition of selflessness is akin to collectivism. You are free to relinquish your agency, but that too is a choice made by you.

waytogoal OP t1_jat6xca wrote on March 3, 2023 at 9:57 PM

More clarification to help you understand: some of you seem to have conflated that only by giving importance to a "self" can one become a thinking, responsible person (that's why you think no emphasis of self = mindless). Whereas if we focus on our actions, we "stop thinking" anymore. Caring about your actions exactly makes you think about the right thing - the consequence of your actions. As humans we always think, but we need to prioritise thinking certain things over others, we have a limited amount of mental resources.

VitriolicViolet t1_jaym4pa wrote on March 5, 2023 at 1:58 AM

and for some bizarre reason you are separating the self from action.

i am my actions as 'i' am the sum of all my memories, experiences culture, genes etc.

therefore your entire position is incoherent, there is no demarcation between the self and ones actions.

scrollbreak t1_jat9vqo wrote on March 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM

The other person referred to self regulating self - it seems odd to then just push the idea of self as always being having no perception of self, like cancer cells have no perception of self. Seems like the author and your idea of 'self' involves no self regulation component at all.

TheRoadsMustRoll t1_jasd4ek wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:41 PM

>...the attachment to something impermanent and untrue must cause suffering. Jay Garfield

while tangential to the subject of the article this is pure gold. it strikes me as a foundational statement to what we call "cognitive dissonance."

Conditional-Sausage t1_jaurz78 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 5:45 AM

Interestingly, this is very, very close to parts of the core Buddhist principles, known as the four noble truths. Buddhism also has a lot to say with regards to the illusion of the self (see: Anatman), in that it holds that there is no fixed, unchanging self, but rather a constantly fluctuating combination of five components known as the five aggregates. So any attachment to your ideas of yourself will cause you to suffer, because you will eventually change enough or arrive at the right circumstances to falsify that self-narrative.

TheRoadsMustRoll t1_jawom1q wrote on March 4, 2023 at 5:30 PM

>Buddhism also has a lot to say with regards to the illusion of the self

agreed.

and i find the reactions to the OP interesting from an allegorical standpoint: when the Buddha was under the tree seeking enlightenment he was constantly beset by jealous gods that didn't want to let him into their realm. they each plied their talents tempting him and challenging him to remain in the material world.

so here's the OP posting a little bit of truth with some Buddhist flavor to it and he is instantly barraged by people claiming that the self is all-important and that he doesn't know what he's talking about and that we shouldn't be trying for anything beyond sheer materialism.

so i guess Kali and Shiva et.al. have gone digital now lol.

cutdownthere t1_javqtk4 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 1:16 PM

I would say I see parallels to this and islam's concept "dunya".

So_frickin_tasty t1_javzlj0 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:34 PM

Islam incorporates a lot of other religious tenets. This is directly inspired by Buddhism, though typically this focus on mysticism is overlooked (or violently rejected in some cases).

cutdownthere t1_jb0sxj7 wrote on March 5, 2023 at 3:51 PM

Have you not heard of the sufis?

perldawg t1_javzqeq wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:35 PM

Jay Garfield has studied Buddhism for decades, so that certainly aligns

LBGW_experiment t1_jawcwdc wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:11 PM

The article constantly references different Buddhist beliefs and the author is Chinese, so...

heskey30 t1_jatqgpt wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:20 AM

On the contrary, it's only natural that impermanent beings would be attached to impermanent things and ideas. I think the most mentally healthy people I know don't consider eternity or the impermanence of everything very often.

TheRoadsMustRoll t1_jatszpy wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:39 AM

>...it's only natural that impermanent beings would be attached to impermanent things and ideas.

that's true but wasn't germane to what was being quoted.

>...the attachment to something impermanent and untrue must cause suffering. Jay Garfield

i.e. i love my car and i have no apologies to make about it. its a material object and it is decaying and it will eventually rust and dissolve and that will make me sad. recognizing in advance that the impermanence of materialism always leads to suffering is what allows me some enlightenment and foresight.

if i were ever interested in something less painful i might consider looking beyond my material world. for a christian that might mean delving into the lessons of the bible or a Buddhist might focus on some meditations. that's the point; to simply be aware of reality.

Doobledorf t1_jatz4vn wrote on March 4, 2023 at 1:29 AM

Exactly this. It isn't saying "don't be sad that your car will someday not be here." Instead, it's that the sadness you experience will be easier to deal with rather than the sadness caused by the loss AND clinging to what you no longer have.

Bakemono30 t1_jaxex7d wrote on March 4, 2023 at 8:30 PM

In other words, a shift in perspective. Both are not changing the fact that the car will die, but the fact that one’s perspective towards that event is key to finding oneself.

I may have to look further into this… I feel like my perspectives in my life need some serious retuning. Thank you!

Doobledorf t1_jaxg271 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 8:37 PM

Of course! I found the idea of "dropping the second arrow" to be really helpful, if you're interested in some reading. I think it's a Buddhist concept?

Bakemono30 t1_jaxg724 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 8:38 PM

Cool! I will definitely check it out! Thanks again!

CableTrash t1_jautyph wrote on March 4, 2023 at 6:07 AM

Nah I think about that shit all the time and I’m perfectly menta…… oh wait

Eruptflail t1_javn001 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:36 PM

Ignorance is bliss one might say. I do disagree with the anecdote, though. I think that the people who are the most mentally healthy are those who have done the mental work and have moved past it. They're not going to get hit with an existential crisis when they actually come to terms with their mortality when they hit 35.

People may seem mentally healthy until they suddenly aren't. It's not until you've danced in the void that you're truly healthy.

manjar t1_javzobe wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:35 PM

And also natural that this causes suffering. There's lots of suffering.

rupertdeberre t1_javqb61 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 1:11 PM

The idea of a cognitive dissonance is rooted in the idea of a "self". It's the conflict of two ideas that a "self" holds, and which acts upon a "self" to cause distress or disharmony. If you were to look at this more pluralistically, you might say that these contradictions are products of a world that is systemic (made up of interlinking, pluralistic systems).

Spagoodler t1_jashroc wrote on March 3, 2023 at 7:11 PM

I feel this article is neglecting a lot of psychology. Sense of self is very important to maintain mental stability. The brains thoughts and pathways are largely connected to the concept of the self.

librarygirl t1_jasxsp7 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 8:56 PM

Yep. “Know thyself” is pretty much the oldest piece of advice we have in our civilisation

Anineko13 t1_javby5a wrote on March 4, 2023 at 10:09 AM

I believe the modern term is you better check yo self before you wreck yo self

[deleted] t1_javokdm wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:53 PM

[deleted]

_fidel_castro_ t1_jav9k6j wrote on March 4, 2023 at 9:35 AM

Yes! But the answer has been mostly forgotten by our current civilisation

Armchair_QB3 t1_javbzoj wrote on March 4, 2023 at 10:10 AM

Speaking of psychology, this author lost all credibility with me the moment they cited a different result on the discredited Myers-Briggs as evidence of a changing ‘self.’

That test was designed by laymen, holds no scientific merit, and often gives a different result depending just on your mood, let alone retaking it years apart.

LBGW_experiment t1_jawd5vz wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:13 PM

They were using a pop sci self personality test to show the change of one's self over time, and it was a brief mention, and didn't say Myers-Briggs held any water.

DrHaroldSkrote t1_jawixuf wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:52 PM

Personality is firmly established by the late teens.
A person may feel that they have changed but that change imperceptible to everyone else. Behavior can change fortunately

vestigina t1_javwq75 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:11 PM

You really think the author picked this as "evidence"? It is clear that this is written to make a story, starting small and then expand later. The next sentence is already telling you it is not just about the anecdote...

I am surprised this is the take-home of the article you focused on.

plssirnomore t1_jav9k21 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 9:35 AM

Assumption that mental stability is understood. Who says what is mentally stable? Is it mentally stable to do the same thing everyday, destroying the mind body and soul, to be able to purchase consumer goods, which are only desired due to advanced manipulation by cooperate entities, whose only desire is to gain material wealth on a mass scale. Is that really mental stability?

Is it mentally stable to pass the homeless man on the street without as much as considering that anyone of us could be that man within mere months upon losing your job? Is it mentally stable to ignore that, when you are able to understand how you would feel if another ignored you in that same situation?

One day, you think one thing. The next day, you think the next thing. One day you 'love' the girl, the next day you cant remember her face. You are not the personality, the narrative, the perceived reflection of yourself in others treatment of you. You are not the result of the conditioning you received. You are not the theory of evolution, your thoughts, or even your ability to think. You are not the pathways in your brain, or a 'concept' you believe originated in the brain.

I don't know what I am, but I can rule out what Im not. If I can demolish the 'self', and still exist, then I was never that 'self'. I merely assumed I was out of ignorance.

Spagoodler t1_jaw4uh1 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 3:14 PM

Hm, you bring up an interesting point. I think a brain has an essence and having a defunct concept of self would hinder that essence of functioning properly. There is a physical aspect here in which you could measure mental instability through neural pathways, etc… I agree with what you are saying though; is mental stability simply conforming to reality/society or is there more to it? I’ve personally though as mental instability as anything that hinders you from fulfilling biological needs.

plssirnomore t1_jax35wn wrote on March 4, 2023 at 7:09 PM

I could do a better test of mental stability than any machine. I could sit in a dark room with my eyes closed and watch what happens internally. You, me and everyone else on earth can do it for free, everyday. After doing it for a bit you will find that the self you identify with may not be as concrete to your functioning as you may of been led to believe!

VitriolicViolet t1_jaymyfn wrote on March 5, 2023 at 2:05 AM

>Assumption that mental stability is understood. Who says what is mentally stable? Is it mentally stable to do the same thing everyday, destroying the mind body and soul, to be able to purchase consumer goods, which are only desired due to advanced manipulation by cooperate entities, whose only desire is to gain material wealth on a mass scale. Is that really mental stability?
>
>Is it mentally stable to pass the homeless man on the street without as much as considering that anyone of us could be that man within mere months upon losing your job? Is it mentally stable to ignore that, when you are able to understand how you would feel if another ignored you in that same situation?

yes, those things are all mentally stable, since mental stability is only measured by differing and changing mental states.

whether or not they are mentally healthy is another thing (i am mentally stable, to an extreme point, but i'm not mentally healthy)

plssirnomore t1_jazv7bs wrote on March 5, 2023 at 10:02 AM

Sorry to hear that. I agree with you though, and see that a sense of self for sure makes you mentally stable. But as I understand it nothing in nature is static, and as part of nature we don't want to be too stable, especially if its in conformity to corrupt societies or systems.

Wishing you mental health and fluidity from afar.

sn2chemist t1_jazhae2 wrote on March 5, 2023 at 6:53 AM

The idea behind this is that a focus on the self leads to disharmony because people start to see their traits as particularly unique and isolated. That can make someone feel way more inferior or superior to others due to too much focus on some concept of a unique constant self. When there’s less focus on the self a person can see themselves as part of a whole and make changes and feel normalcy etc. as opposed to being stuck absorbed within what you’ve labeled yourself.

papyracanthus t1_jatbidx wrote on March 3, 2023 at 10:29 PM

This entire article is reductive and severely lacking in awareness.

"But here is the inconvenient truth: “I am a party/career, coffee/tea, outdoor/indoor, [insert any description] person” is largely a function of the desire to fit in some social groups, to follow what is considered socially “cool”, or the fear of being asked what you like and not knowing how to answer."

This reads as a totally self-influenced statement, ignoring all evolutionary advantages of social mimicry as well as the massive amount of variations in behaviour between people.

waytogoal OP t1_jatckhs wrote on March 3, 2023 at 10:37 PM

So, you agree this image of "self" is often just a reflection of societal norms and peer pressure? Thus agreeing with the assessment?

The problem is with the glorification, the dose is the poison, at what point in evolutionary history do we have the extent brought out by modern-day Instagram and Tiktok? Are the current societal norms ever seen in the history of human evolution? How do you know it will be advantageous?

papyracanthus t1_jav1t21 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 7:46 AM

I'm not sure how you read that as me agreeing, could you explain why you think I was?

waytogoal OP t1_jazxnx5 wrote on March 5, 2023 at 10:38 AM

Since you mentioned the advantage of social mimicry. People are not just mimicking to get some (I don't know what) advantages, without their idea of self being influenced in the midst.

If you claim there is some large-scale evolutionary advantage/reason of social mimicry, then most people are surely being influenced by societal norms and values, no? And now you start to ask, are the current societal norms and values "good", or are close to anything of our evolutionary past?

papyracanthus t1_jb5fzuq wrote on March 6, 2023 at 4:03 PM

I think I understand where you're coming from now.

There's plenty of information out there that shows the evolutionary benefits of social mimicry, an off-hand example being shared expressions used to alert others in our social circles of danger, and in turn them using the same behaviours to alert us of danger.

Outside of a traditionally evolutionary context, the use of spoken language itself can be considered to be, or at least to be borne of, social mimicry and I think it'd be hard to argue that spoken language isn't beneficial to human interaction.

Social mimicry, however, is merely a part of what most consider the 'self'. It could even be argued that the true 'self' is a representation of the individual in the absence of these external influences.

Could you explain how you define the 'self'? This will allow me to have a better understanding of your concept of 'glorification of the self' and explain why, if I am already understanding correctly, my opinions differ.

ClintFlindt t1_javn1pd wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:37 PM

You should look up evolutionary and cultural psychology, specifically the Gene-Culture Co-evolution approach, which is trying to scientifically investigate the synergy between genes and culture, and what consequences it has for our evolution.

VitriolicViolet t1_jayo2fv wrote on March 5, 2023 at 2:14 AM

>So, you agree this image of "self" is often just a reflection of societal norms and peer pressure? Thus agreeing with the assessment?

no.

i spent 6 months alone in a tent many kms from any other humans, the 'self' i consider myself to be is ever changing and has nothing to do with the rest of society (fitting in is one of the least important goals a person could have).

what does social media have to do with anything? personally i dont use any outside of reddit and i have no social life outside my partner. my life revolves around gardening and epicurean pleasures (as distinct from hedonism) from art to study.

what 'self' am i cultivating for people i spend no time with or care for? (self-employed too so i only deal with those i wish too)

to top it off despite living entirely for myself ive done more to help others and the environment than most have, likely including yourself (planted well-over 10,000 trees, i intentionally own less than 5k in total possessions, ive housed homeless people ive never met, i help do animal rescue with my partner etc).

this entire article is about the risks and dangers of focusing on the self and yet i stand testament to the fact that focusing on the self can be a good thing for all.

waytogoal OP t1_jazx717 wrote on March 5, 2023 at 10:31 AM

Sorry, lost track a bit since there are too many comments, but you made some interesting points.
It seems you live quite close to what the article suggests: just go do what you like and find meaningful, and be conscious about that. And there is no need to try to fulfill a particular idea of self, it should always be changing, ideally changed by empirical data (that way you connect with the whole), not by some internal data of who you think you are.

But I see a problem when I read: "despite living entirely for myself ive done more to help others and the environment than most have, likely including yourself (planted well-over 10,000 trees, i intentionally own less than 5k in total possessions"

Why you would say you live for "myself", if you are trying to do a lot for others? It reads a bit like stamp collection here to try to fulfill a particular image, you have to be conscious about the consequence of your actions (e.g., many studies have concluded that tree planting, if not done rightly, have a very bad effect on the ecosystem, and is a green-washing technique to fulfill "carbon offset"), it is not about reaching on a particular fix number, it is not a race, it is about the long-term effect.

[deleted] t1_jawc8e5 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:07 PM

[deleted]

thalo616 t1_jasssw6 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 8:24 PM

We don’t find ourselves, we invent identities, whether intentional or not.

RadioForest14 t1_javz7km wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:31 PM

To "find yourself" you have to recognize and unmask the indentities you've fabricated for yourself and learn who and what you are as a unique individual.

trainface_ t1_jaw7p77 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 3:35 PM

What happens when you discover it's masks all the way down?

Mustelafan t1_jawon70 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 5:30 PM

I can't help but feel this is projection. Perhaps it's rare but some people are able to be (more or less) fully honest with themselves and live authentically.

TitansTaint t1_jawb3wt wrote on March 4, 2023 at 3:59 PM

This exact thing hit me really hard last night and it's rough. It is an absolute tragedy and it's been my entire life.

RadioForest14 t1_jazqvy8 wrote on March 5, 2023 at 9:01 AM

Tragedy is often what makes the turn-around possible!
The masks comes of more easily all at once.

VitriolicViolet t1_jaymphr wrote on March 5, 2023 at 2:03 AM

except it isnt?

at the bottom is how you would act alone on an island, that is the 'true' self.

on that front im more true to myself then most people ive ever met.

RadioForest14 t1_jazqk8u wrote on March 5, 2023 at 8:56 AM

Sometimes there's just a lot of masks.

[deleted] t1_jax7a51 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 7:37 PM

[deleted]

Tioben t1_jat74l6 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 9:58 PM

The world harmfully romanticizes all kinds of things that are nevertheless worth understanding and pursuing. The corrective action is to stop romanticizing, not to romanticize the opposite extreme.

JediKnight1111 t1_jas75cy wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:02 PM

Glorifying the self, also called vanity, is seen as detrimental in most cultures. But what about strengthening the self or discovering yourself? You must have some minimum amount of selfishness in order to have self confidence. Otherwise you will not have the confidence to do anything. Without any sense of self, you are a slave to any whim or fad that comes along (ie. climate alarmism)

TheRoadsMustRoll t1_jasebut wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:48 PM

no argument was made that the self isn't important.

the argument being made is that too much importance placed on such an insignificant part of the whole isn't valuable.

in essence there's nothing wrong with being personally successful and happy. but if that success and happiness is based on the entire system bending to your personal needs then you have overstepped your significance.

so its about having a little humility.

JediKnight1111 t1_jaswmy0 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 8:49 PM

You say "No argument was made that the self isn't important." That's funny. Examples of arguing "the self" isn't important:

"All in all, this article argues (against) giving it (the self) too much importance"
You say "the argument being made is that too much importance placed on such an insignificant part (the self)"
"Feeding this ego of “what is me(the self)” limits your consciousness and freedom"

I agree that there's nothing wrong with being personally successful and happy. But you are missing the principle that success and happiness are relative, ie. they are different for different people. It sounds like you are saying that you shouldn't base your happiness on other people, and doing this requires a strong self confidence and knowing yourself. SO I guess you agree with me that the self is important.

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jawt0wb wrote on March 4, 2023 at 6:00 PM

>no argument was made that the self isn't important.

No it's worse, it's arguing that the self is an illusion.

>From the Buddhist perspective, the idea of ‘individual self’ is an illusion

kimishere2 t1_jaslf1z wrote on March 3, 2023 at 7:35 PM

Swinging any which way to an extreme is bad. Why is this news?

Petal_Chatoyance t1_jast0o8 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 8:25 PM

Cogito, ergo sum.

Without a 'self' the first principle of philosophy becomes meaningless. You can have my self when you pry it from my cold dead hands - only you can't, because at that point my self wouldn't exist anymore.

The self is all we ever have. It is the only thing that can be depended upon to be real. The self is all we can ever truly know. The self is how we relate to the larger world, for we stand always in relation to that world by virtue of that self. No self, no relating to anything, because nobody is home even if the lights appear on.

dbrodes t1_jatebqz wrote on March 3, 2023 at 10:49 PM

>The self is all we ever have. It is the only thing that can be depended upon to be real

I've never understood this logic

Petal_Chatoyance t1_jauc1d0 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 3:14 AM

"Teach it phenomenology, Doolittle! Phenomenology!" - Dark Star, 1974

Everything you perceive, or experience, comes through your sensory apparatus, your eyes, ears, sense of touch, proprioception, and so on. Your brain processes this information, and in this way, you think you live in a world, have a body, and so on.

Nothing you experience is real.

When you see something - my words, here, on the screen you are watching - you are seeing how things were about a hundredth of a second after the fact. It takes time to process sight and understand what you see. But more than that, you are not actually seeing 'reality' - your brain constructs what you see and projects it for you as a waking dream.

This is partly because your vision center is made of modules, each which does one specific task: one clump of neurons only processes horizontal lines, another vertical, one processes contours, another processes light values, and so on. But there is more: your brain is constantly filling in gaps with virtual reality - things that are not there at all.

Of course, your 'blind spot', the place in your retina where your nerves blossom out into the retina itself, no vision occurs there, so the brain just 'paints over' the region with whatever was close to it. And yes, your peripheral vision - anything just a ways to the side of the center of your sight - is all in black and white. No color at all. But, your brain makes you think you are seeing color, because it paints it in - sometimes falsely. And, of course, your macula - the tiny spot in the very center of your vision, about the diameter of a dime at arms length. That's the only part of your vision that is sharp or clear - everything else is low resolution. Yet, you think you are seeing a detailed, colorful world - all a waking dream, created by the same part of your brain that actually dreams. You live, constantly, in biological virtual reality. Most of what you see is... made up.

This is why optical illusions work, by the way. They work because they are images that break your brain's virtual reality system and show you how the visual hamburger is made.

And there is the matter of saccades. Constantly, your eyeballs are twitching - moving, scanning, flicking from one spot to another - as you read these words, as you look around your room. If you actually could see with your eyes, the world would look like the jerkiest of badly-filmed music videos, with the camera jumping around so rapidly that nothing made any sense, and everything was a smear.

Fortunately, your brain has a solution: you don't actually see anything (it's a waking dream based on input from your eyes) and the good thing about that is that your brain can just turn it off. When your eyes flick and jitter and jump from spot to spot constantly, your vision just... shuts off. You are completely blind for about a 40 minutes (!) of every day. It's just that this total blindness happens during the tiny moments when your eyes jerk about. Your brain just shuts off vision, then convinces you that it didn't do that. That lie makes you think you are seeing this page, your room, whatever, as a constant movie of your life. It ain't so. Not even close.

And all of this is true of all your other senses, too, in various ways. You - your 'self' is forever living in a virtual reality recreation of the world outside your brain, computed by your brain, based on information your nerves report. But it is not actual reality. You will, from birth to death, never see actual reality. You will only touch, taste, feel and see a model of it constructed, projected, and edited by your brain modules.

What it 'really' is, your senses cannot tell you. And lest you think this mere semantics, consider the issue of the weird divide between quantum scale reality and large scale reality - they don't agree. At all. Yet, our senses paint us a cohesive reality that is very useful for an animal surviving on earth. But mathematics and technology give us more senses, and they describe a reality a bit stranger than that, one we cannot ourselves directly see.

And so it goes.

With that stated, we get to phenomenology.

If the only way you can know the world is through your senses, and your senses lie to you and you exist only within a waking dream your brain invents to help you survive, what do you really know about literally anything? I mean actually, really, truly know?

And if you cannot know anything about actual reality, then what is left? What do you have that you can still call real... to you?

You. Your self. That is all that you have left. Just you. Somebody is experiencing this illusion, this lying set of sense impressions. Who is that somebody? It is you. You are that somebody. Your self is the only thing you can truly hold real. Because you... are the experiencer and the entity thinking about all of this.

You think, therefore you are. You are the only thing you can ever be certain is real.

Make sense?

AdvonKoulthar t1_jauxdg1 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 6:48 AM

Haha, I feel like that’s a bit wordy and flowery to get the point across to someone who says they don’t understand it.

Petal_Chatoyance t1_javeznv wrote on March 4, 2023 at 10:53 AM

Okay, can you do better? Show me a way to convey phenomenology in, like, a single, short, concise paragraph. I mean, other than just copy-pasting a dictionary definition or whatever - something that would really get the idea across.

Maybe you can do better than I. I would be interested to see that - I know I like writing a little too much.

[deleted] t1_javxzyi wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:21 PM

[deleted]

dbrodes t1_javgvnk wrote on March 4, 2023 at 11:20 AM

Just because reality is coloured by your perceptions doesn't make your perceptions any more 'real' though.

Petal_Chatoyance t1_javhvsh wrote on March 4, 2023 at 11:33 AM

What? That was incoherent. That sentence doesn't make any sense. I don't have a clue what you are trying to say.

dbrodes t1_javieex wrote on March 4, 2023 at 11:40 AM

How can you say your 'self' is real when you, yourself, concede your view of the world is influenced by perception, habits and socialisation. I'm just curious why you think the self is independent from being skewed by such perceptions?

Petal_Chatoyance t1_javjfa3 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 11:54 AM

I may not know anything is real, but I know I have a self, because that self is writing this.

You may not know anything is real, but you know you have a self, because that is what is reading this.

If you do not have a self, then you are not reading this right now. Without a self, you do not exist as a person. You - do not exist. You are your 'self'. Without a 'self' you are a shell, a philosophical zombie, a mindless thing that has no thoughts, no feeling, no anything.

That is how you know. Your senses could be lying to you. You could be hallucinating everything - even this response. You could be a brain in a jar - but there is still a you, asking the question of me. That self that you are, regardless of any outside information, clearly exists. You are experiencing it. It is the one thing you can say you truly experience.

dbrodes t1_javkb7g wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:04 PM

>If you do not have a self, then you are not reading this right now. Without a self, you do not exist as a person. You - do not exist. You are your 'self'. Without a 'self' you are a shell, a philosophical zombie, a mindless thing that has no thoughts, no feeling, no anything.

Why do think someone disconnected from their true self would have no thoughts or feeling?

How do you know your thoughts and feelings are authentically yours? Just because you experience something doesn't make your 'self' necessarily something tangible and independent from perception.

Petal_Chatoyance t1_jaxr1t4 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 9:54 PM

'Authentically yours?' This statement literally means less than nothing.

By less, I mean that it increases confusion and ignorance more than mere nonsense would do.

If the only voice that exists in your own head, the only perception that exists in your private universe, the only awareness that you can - ever - experience is literally all that can ever happen for you, the issue of 'authentically' has no meaning.

To even suggest that your own self awareness is 'inauthentic' invokes something outside yourself that could be authentic, or which is producing a false sensation of existence, and there is zero basis for such a notion. It is ridiculous at every level.

If your own self awareness is not 'authentic', then what would be 'authentic'? You might as well be asking, about the apple on your plate, 'is this apple a - real - apple?' what does that even mean? It is defined as an 'apple'. It is all that there is. What is it? A plastic replica?

There is no 'plastic replica' of self aware experience. You either exist, or you do not, in which case this argument ends - you do not exist, and I am not communicating with anyone at all.

If you can post back, you exist, and that existence is authentic. It has to be, unless you are a NLP-based chatbot, which you cannot be, because such a bot cannot succeed in signing on to reddit to respond in the first place.

This is getting silly, by which I mean you are getting silly.

dbrodes t1_jb02nla wrote on March 5, 2023 at 11:48 AM

I find your definition of self a bit reductionist tbh. I also find your tone a bit patronising but we'll move past that.

Your take is somewhat solipsistic. You agree that we are slave to our perceptions and experiences but seem to think the self transcends this.

Just because you choose to identify with your thoughts doesn't make them anymore 'you'.

Petal_Chatoyance t1_jb0s7h8 wrote on March 5, 2023 at 3:46 PM

If you exist, you have a self. So long as you know you exist, your self is present. The moment you lack a self, you no longer exist and are effectively dead.

If this is not clear, obvious, solid, undeniable, and indisputable to you, then there is just no point.

I am weary of watching René Descartes spin in his grave.

Have fun.

dbrodes t1_jb0sq7o wrote on March 5, 2023 at 3:49 PM

It's evident how your solipsistic view of things and your hubris feed each other.

Petal_Chatoyance t1_jb0wy1t wrote on March 5, 2023 at 4:22 PM

There is no solipsism in anything I said. I have no idea why you are invoking an entirely separate branch of philosophy other than, perhaps, you simply don't understand the terms you are using.

If you wanted to talk solipsism, you should have said that. We were discussing phenomenology, last I heard.

Now, I am just confused by you. Either you haven't got a clue, or you are just trolling me. Either way, I am now done.

Try looking up both terms. Learn what they actually mean. Yes, they could overlap, but so could a lot of things with either term. Like I said - have fun.

waytogoal OP t1_jarqn7w wrote on March 3, 2023 at 4:15 PM

Submission statement:

The modern world romanticizes finding yourself, your style, your type, etc. This “quest” is even glorified to the point that you would feel compelled to lie about what is “you” all the time, just so you could gain a foothold in society. Ironically, dwelling on this image of “self” neither helps you find your true nature, nor to find your role in the larger world. Feeding this ego of “what is me” limits your consciousness and freedom, it distracts you from the more important issues in life, from experiencing, endeavoring, and experimenting in the grand, holistic world in an unbiased way.

All in all, this article argues the futility of glorifying the “self” (giving it too much importance) from the point of view of Buddhism e.g., attachment to something impermanent and untrue must cause suffering, as the true essence of existence is a dynamic interconnected whole; from findings in biology and evolution: niche partitioning is an invariant evolutionary outcome of all life, everything continuously evolves and adapts, even within a single lifetime of the same individual, whatever you think is your "self" will be "forced" to change in no time; from the point of view of neuroscience and information: internally recycled beliefs are bad data for building a mental model, one has to obtain “experimental data” by learning from the real-world effect of your actions.

Mustelafan t1_jascumk wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:39 PM

>The modern world romanticizes finding yourself, your style, your type, etc.

>Ironically, dwelling on this image of “self” neither helps you find your true nature, nor to find your role in the larger world.

I'm a bit confused, couldn't "your true nature" just be taken to mean "your true self"? The vibe I'm getting from this article is "there is no true self, that's an illusion, but if you acknowledge the self is plastic and changes over time it's actually totally real, also be nice to people."

It seems like you're just saying "the true self isn't static like many think, but evolves over time" which I would agree with, but you've muddied the point by using obfuscatory language to shoehorn in an attempt at dunking on ignorant, vain, shallow westerners (low hanging fruit) and glorifying Buddhism - and, ironically, it comes across like your own ego stroking. Not saying this is what you intended or that I 100% understood what your article is about, but this is what this comes across as to me.

In my view, given that at the end of the day everyone just wants to be satisfied with their own life, "finding your true self" just means finding the version of the self that is most satisfying now and putting yourself on the path to be satisfied even as the self evolves. (Of course the lay public fails miserably at that task, because they fail miserably at everything that requires careful contemplation - but that's not an indictment of whatever philosophy they're attempting to carry out IMO). And in this context finding the "true self" would then be extremely important. Of course we should attempt to experience the holistic world as it truly is - but are we not a part of said world? Can we truly understand the world if we don't understand ourselves, and vice versa?

>attachment to something impermanent and untrue must cause suffering

I totally agree with the Buddhists here. But the self doesn't need to be defined only in terms of who we are at the present, transient moment, which can result in suffering (not that I believe all suffering should be avoided, but that's beside the point). The self can also be defined in terms of our past (including the old "false" self that we were) and who we want to be and at one point wanted to be in the future, and whoever we end up being. Instead of arguing against the concept of self, perhaps we should be advocating a more holistic view of the self instead?

waytogoal OP t1_jaskmhx wrote on March 3, 2023 at 7:30 PM

You made some good points and you have understood my article very well. Sorry for sounding a bit condescending in the article (I understand this tone alone would inevitably generate some controversies).

But I would argue that if the nature of self is always changing quickly no matter what, then why would we need to emphasize on it, develop it in a particular way, or stroke it. Ultimately, it is a highly cultural thing, from my experience, even contemporary "Easterners" (since you use Westerners) don't care about the concept of "self" that much, it doesn't mean they starve themselves or they don't make themselves happy, it is just that the idea of caring about that mental construct of self never cross their minds i.e., we rarely talk about it.

I also respond to another commenter below embodying similar logic: "The main obstacle to finding your true nature, true "self" if you'd like to call it, is obsessing over it." I think nouns that deserve a "shoutout" or "emphasis" are things that are quite stable in the human sense of lifetime.

Mustelafan t1_jasrrt0 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 8:17 PM

Oh no need to apologize for sounding condescending, I do that all the time lol

>But I would argue that if the nature of self is always changing quickly no matter what, then why would we need to emphasize on it, develop it in a particular way, or stroke it.

Well, I'd ask in return, if a river is always rushing why attempt to control its flow with dams and stabilize its banks to prevent erosion? Often letting the river just do whatever it does is the best thing to do, but sometimes it's also best to rein it in.

I'm going to continue with this terrible analogy because I like it. The "Easterners" might say, "why the hell did you build your house in a flood plain?" And the "Westerners" might say, "why the hell would I want to walk two miles to get water?" They're both perfectly valid questions and the answer depends on an individual's needs and, as you said, cultural factors. If Easterners can be satisfied without worrying about a Western conception of self, great. If a Westerner can be satisfied with their own concept of self, also great. I personally find a holistic concept of self to be useful for clarifying my path in life, speaking as someone who used to struggle with depression and derealization - I'm not even sure how I would function without such a concept.

>"The main obstacle to finding your true nature, true "self" if you'd like to call it, is obsessing over it."

This I would absolutely agree with. But I do think finding the self takes contemplation - I'm not sure if one can find it without thinking about it at all.

waytogoal OP t1_jatadhj wrote on March 3, 2023 at 10:21 PM

I really like your river analogy, it got me thinking a lot. And if it works for you, then please don't stop learning the "holistic self".

To go back to the river, perhaps the distinction is a high-risk-high-reward vs. low-risk-low-reward culture. But there is more nuance to that, I think the world is asymmetric, symmetry-breaking is what creates this world, otherwise it is a nothingness vaccuum state (this is hard-coded in the laws of nature in my opinion).

So what on earth am I talking about? In evolution, we seem to also have an asymmetry, everything that is done hastily without consideration of the surrounding (the whole) is almost guaranteed to destroy others and produce a net suffering (maybe you won't see it, but your grandkid will see the failure). So, there is this asymmetry here - High risk won't necessarily give you a high reward in the long-term sense (there is only a small stochastic chance others might be able to pick up from your mess); the greatest reward is found when you do things slowly (low-intervention) and considering the whole i.e. low-risk, high-reward.

Mustelafan t1_jatd1c8 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 10:40 PM

I agree with everything you just said, but I'm not sure I get the implication. Are you saying the "holistic self" as we're calling it, or the Western analog of it it is risky? Because I wouldn't necessarily disagree (I'd really have to think about it), but surely there's a best of both worlds here. Something like Jungian psychology or perhaps something based on Nietzschean philosophy that could potentially identify who would benefit from intentional "self-finding" and who would be better off not worrying much about the self at all. Just because something is high risk doesn't mean it's bad - it just takes a specific type of person.

velcrodon t1_jasu743 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 8:33 PM

One point that may help clarify some of the general thoughts on ‘self’ in terms of Buddhism - there is a concept of who is watching the watcher. Meaning, if you stop to pay attention to the various thoughts/biases/whatever that pop into your head and watch them flow in, who then is the true self? Are you those thoughts? Are you the watcher and not the thoughts? Are you both.

This is where the concept of self gets very sticky, and is why articles about self and Buddhism speak about the fleeting transitory nature of self and how we all evolve over time.

waytogoal OP t1_jat5o2d wrote on March 3, 2023 at 9:48 PM

Thanks for the clarification!

Too many people conflated that "watcher" as their consciousness. The former is much more limited than the latter.

TheRoadsMustRoll t1_jasbqco wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:31 PM

> ...the futility of glorifying the “self” (giving it too much importance)...

and there are many great real world examples of this hubris in front of us right now.

i.e. world leaders who have wrapped the future of their political constituencies around themselves (without any thought given to what happens and who takes over after they die.)

i.e. corporate leaders who scrape every last bit of profit out of every market they can get their hands on (without any thought given to who is going to be able to buy anything if all the money is in a few bank accounts owned by the wealthiest people.)

pure hubris.

Bennito_bh t1_jasokxm wrote on March 3, 2023 at 7:56 PM

….that’s not how being rich works.

MiamisOwn t1_jasben1 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:29 PM

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Picards-Flute t1_jarr03l wrote on March 3, 2023 at 4:17 PM

We are a social species fundamentally, and we should always keep that in mind in our place in the world

Ideas from people like Ayne Rand about selfishness being a virtue runs counter to millions of years of evolutionary history

SplodyPants t1_jas190s wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:24 PM

I think it's Rand's, shall we say, "unique" take on ethics that can be seen as irresponsible or dangerous. Selfishness isn't necessarily a bad idea. Especially when it's possible to help others selfishly.

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jartuau wrote on March 3, 2023 at 4:36 PM

>Ideas from people like Ayne Rand about selfishness being a virtue runs counter to millions of years of evolutionary history

That doesn't sound right, evolutionary scientists aren't writing books called "the selfish gene" for no reason.

I would argue we have billions of years of selfishly passing on genes, with being social just a tool to selfishly pass on genes.

waytogoal OP t1_jarw9o6 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 4:52 PM

Wrong. First, even Dawkins hated the word "selfish". He regretted and suggested to replace with "immortal" (since it is basically redundant and only misleads laymen, its use is equivalent to "persistence" in his book, it doesn't mean "selfishness" in common sense usage).

Second, almost every single thing you see in the biological world is gradually built from the result of cooperation being a stronger force than selfishness - single gene > genome > complex cells > Eukaryotes > multicellular individual > community and ecosystems etc. (Yes, things like cancer, predation, and parasitism exist but they are and must be kept to a low percentage biomass-wise, else ecosystem collapse would follow).

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jarxnkb wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:00 PM

Maybe I should rephrase it. Being social is just a means to be able to pass on more of your own genes.

So I wouldn't say we are fundamentally social.

itsdoctorlee t1_jas3ler wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:39 PM

What do you mean by "fundamentally social"? We are social if we successfully survive by forming society through millions of years.
Do you want to say we aren't fundamentally cooperative/altruistic/empathetic towards others? (somewhere along these lines)

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jas6wsa wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:00 PM

>What do you mean by "fundamentally social"?

You first used it in the context of us being fundamentally social not selfish.

So I took it to be a definition which excludes the real reason being selfish. So I oppose the idea that they are mutually exclusive.

>Do you want to say we aren't fundamentally cooperative/altruistic/empathetic towards others? (somewhere along these lines)

It feels like we are getting at psychological egoism.

>Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest and selfishness, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from so doing.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

[deleted] t1_jas2j6z wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:32 PM

[deleted]

[deleted] t1_jas1yso wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:28 PM

[deleted]

TheRoadsMustRoll t1_jas8bwx wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:09 PM

>evolutionary scientists aren't writing books called "the selfish gene"

correct. only one scientist wrote that book. had you read it you might have understood that Dawkins uses the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution (as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group)

>being social just a tool to selfishly pass on genes.

so you admit that taking out the "social" part (so no genes are passed on) would end the human race? or how did you expect to continue? because, by your own admission then, being social is fundamental to human existence.

TheHeigendov t1_jarrm80 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 4:21 PM

and their own lives, she spent her entire career railing against the idea of a social safety net and those pathetic enough to need it and then wound up living out the end of her life poor and on welfare.

waytogoal OP t1_jarrxsy wrote on March 3, 2023 at 4:23 PM

And there are very good evolutionary reasons we are social species, and this social nature of our being in turn constantly feeds information to change the "self". If one holds strongly onto a particular idea of "what is me", they are going to feel threatened continuously and cause chaos by retaliating unnecessarily.

Druid___ t1_jasf898 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:54 PM

So to find yourself, you simply need to stop looking?

waytogoal OP t1_jasgzw5 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 7:06 PM

The main obstacle to finding your true nature, true "self" if you'd like to call it, is obsessing over it. Same with finding happiness.

The article has this line that embodies a similar logic: "Don’t follow the cliché of “love yourself”, instead, love what you do. If you are doing something truly great and proud of, how else would you not feel loved?"

scrollbreak t1_jata6re wrote on March 3, 2023 at 10:20 PM

Well because the thing being done is being loved - that's not the same as oneself being loved. How can you feel 'you' are being loved if you wont formulate a sense of 'you'?

RedditExecutiveAdmin t1_javxvc6 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:20 PM

the real self is the friends we made along the way

TheWarInBaSingSe t1_jaxkfzr wrote on March 4, 2023 at 9:07 PM

You're missing the crucial why.

The problem is the expectation that there is a true self to find in the first place. Simply needing to stop looking for it, implies that you might find it one day. The expectation that you might find it one day will constantly cause suffering, because you would think that you are missing something or that your life isnt fullfilled until you have it.

Understand that "the true self" doesnt exist. Therefore you can let go of the thought of your true self and you will never even feel the need to look for something that you know doesnt exist.

Edit: Instead focus your attention on the things that exist and are actually worthwhile.

[deleted] t1_jauu7pc wrote on March 4, 2023 at 6:10 AM

[deleted]

TitansTaint t1_jawd8mr wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:13 PM

That is the ideal state but I'm starting to see that so many of us are unable to see or understand this and as a result have a weak sense of self. That fundamental lack of authentic self, the inability to exist as our self with our self without judgement, drives us in so many ways. We mask our selves even from our selves and that's the most tragic mask of them all. It's the mask that you never put on and can never take off. It's what self doubt does to us and we all suffer from it to some degree.

theGreatWhite_Moon t1_jas45ax wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:42 PM

"The modern world romanticizes finding yourself, your style, your type, etc. This “quest” is even glorified to the point that you would feel compelled to lie about what is “you” all the time, just so you could gain a foothold in society, and not be considered a pushover since all your peers have “personalities” and “styles” early, apparently."

We're not talking about the Jungian Self are we? Or is it the idea of self that Nietzsche proposes to the dwarf?

The description in the article sounds meager and flat. The post title sports unpleasant taste in comparison.

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jarvmyr wrote on March 3, 2023 at 4:47 PM

>This means “me” is never a solid concept or identity, it must actually change to make way for new life to continue through the lens of evolution. Adaptation and plasticity are the defining, and arguably most powerful characteristics of most, if not all life.

It just seems like they haven't properly defined self and have some confused idea of what self is, rather than having any real issue with the concept. It seems to be they are using some kind of Buddhist definition which makes no sense, similar to Sam Harris. Oh wait they do come out and actually say it.

>From the Buddhist perspective, the idea of ‘individual self’ is an illusion.

I agree the Buddhist definition of self is an illusion, incoherent, makes no sense and doesn't really match up with what people actually mean by self. So I just avoid using such definition and lean towards more materialist definitions.

I like to just use a definition of self = body, but I'm also partial to some dictionary definitions

> : the union of elements (such as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person
>
>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self

waytogoal OP t1_jaryz51 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:09 PM

How about just that "mental image" you think is the "owner" of you? That internal monologue? Is that really you? Or a heap of past habits and social norms? Should you give importance to this mental construct?

Even with your definition: "the union of elements (such as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person", I am arguing exactly these are changing all the time, this "collection of evolving soup" doesn't form a "coherent thing" i.e., self.

waytogoal OP t1_jas09lj wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:17 PM

Let me elaborate. You can say that you - an individual physical organism exist by all means of course (even Buddhists acknowledge this and use person to refer to it, they also know the mind and body exist). This article is about that "mental construct" guiding your desire, what you think is normal, what kind of personality you are, who you should mingle with (I would say most people's idea of "self" stick closely to this). This article says this construct is not important.

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jas5rol wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:53 PM

> This article is about that "mental construct" guiding your desire,

That mental construct is often know as conscious activity. Once you treat it like, that it makes sense.

The issue with your article is you are confusing conscious activity with self. They are different things and if you confuse them, then things don't make sense and hence you'll think the self is an illusion.

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jas5dng wrote on March 3, 2023 at 5:50 PM

>How about just that "mental image" you think is the "owner" of you?

I am a body, which includes a brain, that brain has conscious and unconscious activity. So mental image is just a process in the brain, that models the body.

I'm not sure what you mean of as owner. It's just the body, most the times it's unconscious activity which drives what I do and say, but with higher level more complex activity there is conscious brain activity involved.

>That internal monologue? Is that really you? Or a heap of past habits and social norms?

The internal monologue is just conscious brain activity. No that's not me, it's a tiny aspect of me.

>Should you give importance to this mental construct?

It's just called consciousness. Just a tiny but important aspect of me.

>Even with your definition: "the union of elements (such as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person", I am arguing exactly these are changing all the time,

So what, pretty much everything in the world is constantly changing all the time.

>this "collection of evolving soup" doesn't form a "coherent thing" i.e., self.

Not even you actually believe this. Let's use a real life example. Lets say Alice rapes and murders one of your relatives. If you catch them and are about to call the police, and Alice says don't, I'm a different person, there is no self, so it's not my fault. Would you look at them and actually think that there is no "coherent thing" called Alice which you can hold responsible for raping and killing your relative? Would you actually let them go or would you think that actually, there is this "coherent thing" called Alice that is meaningfully the same and deserves justice/rehabilitation.

waytogoal OP t1_jas6y36 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:00 PM

What did I just read?

About Alice's case, the individual exists, exactly what "self" image this person has or claims to have is irrelevant and unimportant (and arguably doesn't exist except in Alice's head).

The article exactly calls for focusing on the consequence of your action (verb) and worry less about your "self" (noun), are you serious with this response?

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jas7tsx wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:06 PM

>About Alice's case, the individual exists,

Exactly, there is a "coherent thing" Alice, which is what most people actually mean.

>exactly what "self" image this person has or claims to have is irrelevant and unimportant (and arguably doesn't exist except in Alice's head).

Exactly, this Buddhist idea of self, is irrelevant, unimportant and which has no application to reality.

There is no reason to every use this Buddhist definition and every time anyone uses it they will get incoherent conclusions.

If you want to talk about this mental construct then call it consciousness or whatever.

waytogoal OP t1_jas8rzd wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:12 PM

Well, I don't think so, that collection of organic matter is called a person or individual. I have never heard people use "self" to refer to that.

Self usually means that sense of self, that awareness/agency owning your thoughts.

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jas9z3k wrote on March 3, 2023 at 6:20 PM

>Well, I don't think so, that collection of organic matter is called a person or individual. I have never heard people use "self" to refer to that.

I literally quoted a dictionary definition which referred to the "body".

So_frickin_tasty t1_jaw2ht5 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:57 PM

You're not arguing in good faith. You are arguing across a semantic and somatic chasm, one the OP is willing and able to bridge and you are not.

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jawe1tl wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:19 PM

>You're not arguing in good faith. You are arguing across a semantic and somatic chasm, one the OP is willing and able to bridge and you are not.

The op wants to use some incoherent definition of self which and doesn't exist.

The OP's whole point is that their definition of self is an illusion. I'm just agreeing but saying I don't use that definition, and that outside of Buddhism most people really use that definition.

If you use materialist definitions, you don't have any of the issues or confusion especially compared to the Buddhist definitions.

My question to you is how is it possible for the OP or you to put forth any kind of coherent argument for me to address when you use inherently incoherent definitions of self?

Isn't it guaranteed for some people to think I'm arguing in bad faith when discussing something using such an inherently incoherent definition. Isn't it guaranteed that someone will think I'm arguing semantics against something with an inherently incoherent definition?

Mummelpuffin t1_jb62yxy wrote on March 6, 2023 at 6:37 PM

People talk about trying to "find themselves" or to figure out what they inherently want, what their inherent values are, etc., which all requires having the sort of "self" you're insisting people don't believe in.

So_frickin_tasty t1_jaw22u7 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:54 PM

The OP has demonstrated they are willing to explain their definitions. This is just dismissive, unreflective. You could simply say: "I don't know enough about Buddhism to make authoritative statements about their definitions".

The ball is in your court when you respond to them. The OP is incoherent TO YOU because you are not comprehending any conceptual argument being made. So according to you, YOU don't understand what they are saying and it invalidates them. Perhaps you could use some "self" awareness.

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jawfgkh wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:29 PM

> The OP is incoherent TO YOU

That's not the argument. The argument is that the whole article is talking about how the Buddhist definition of self doesn't make sense and how the self is an illusion. Hence the Buddhist definition of self is incoherent.

I mainly agree with the article that the Buddhist definition of self probably has no useful application in the world or your world view.

But that's fine since nothing hinges on the Bhuddisht idea of self, it's all based on materialist definitions of self.

So_frickin_tasty t1_jawh0hb wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:39 PM

I hit the nail on the head, unfortunately.

nildeea t1_jashyk3 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 7:12 PM

But it is highly profitable for the economy.

dougunder t1_jassjy0 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 8:22 PM

I've been going round and round with these topics for months.

Short version: Embracing my culture (Irish Catholic) was the right choice for my family.That is irrespective of the truth the Holy Ghost showed me once i was willing.

I'm more at peace now then anytime in my 40 odd years.

fane1967 t1_jawj15f wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:53 PM

It’s good for narcissism though.

Sycherthrou t1_jasma46 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 7:41 PM

I imagine this article would've landed far better a decade or two ago, when being true to yourself seemed to be an obsession of many.

I obviously don't have any statistics, but at least in the circles I move in, the general sentiment seems to be that you should work on bettering yourself, as opposed to 'finding' yourself. Figure out what you want yourself to be, and then work on making that a reality, so to speak.

So it feels strange to me that the article addresses attachment, and emphasizes a need for change in life. I think society has moved past attempting to be true to itself, and we are beating a dead horse here.

I also want to point out something the article says, which is:

>I bet many of you have a similar experience, feeling that the 5-years-ago “younger you” is hardly the same person, at all

I feel this in its entirety, but I also want to point out that by this logic, lifelong prison sentences shouldn't be a possibility, because the person that committed those crimes doesn't exist 5 years on. Person, here, including their personality, and obviously not just their physical existence.

jdawgeleven11 t1_jat07a7 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 9:12 PM

There is no such thing as a 'true nature' and one's role in the larger world is rarely ever is of consequence to you or the world.

kokanutwater t1_jatitff wrote on March 3, 2023 at 11:22 PM

It’s as interesting as it is clear that this concept of self the article and OP are grappling with is a western idea trying to divorce itself from a western perspective that it clearly can’t escape. It’s a shallow interpretation of the self as well (as shallow as any attempt to intellectually invoke Hitler in a conversation about the Self ffs)

The self, the individual, is an integral part of the whole. We don’t exist in a vacuum, however the whole can’t exist without the individual.

I think the heart of this argument has more to do with the way neoliberalism and hyper consumerism has created a culture (and as a symptom then, a personality of the individual) that is inherently anti-social. The “image” of “self”. Which is valid. In this way, the “image of self” becomes a form of escapism

But taking time to cultivate the self outside of the context of consumerism ultimately leads us back to the whole

KenBlaze t1_jatoaxm wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:03 AM

what if you find your self, then hate it?

tamboril t1_jatqqsy wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:22 AM

Wait...what is meant by OP when they say "you"?

icysniper t1_jatttf4 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:46 AM

Glorifying yourself gives you the confidence to move through society without caring that other people don't like you.

Confident-Broccoli-5 t1_jatw0i3 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 1:03 AM

There seems to be a few questionable moves.

> Jay Garfield, professor of Buddhist philosophy explained the illusion of self this way

See Evan Thompson’s criticism regarding Garfields “illusory self” (& his entire “losing ourselves” book) here - https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/losing-ourselves-learning-to-live-without-a-self/ The main issue seems to be Garfield is conflating pre reflexive self consciousness with some “illusory” subject - object structure.

> Solidifying your “self” — what kind of person you are, your ideal preferences, your becoming, is always dangerous.

I don’t see why we need to be so extreme here, healthy doses of fixation upon self - improvement seems for a lot of people (including myself) rather psychologically healthy & generally quite beneficial etc, it’s not clear what the “danger” is supposed to be here unless it’s taken to obsessive levels.

> Reality is not just about you, when there are several billion people believing in this myth, the Earth and the rest of its inhabitants are truly f__ked.

It’s not clear to me what the “myth” is supposed to be here, what is it that people are wrongfully believing? That they exist as some self? Or as some separate self? Or that they exist at all? The “self” in general is an extremely nebulous term with dramatic variation in usage & conceptualisation, specifically in philosophical discussions regarding it people continuously talk past each other. Overall, to me, it seems our use of the word “self” isn’t even used, nobody in daily life uses the word “self” singularly. What has happened here is the typical everyday pronoun “myself” has been extracted & utilised for “analysis” to the point where we must ask what actually is this “self” we are talking about when we say “myself?” But this seems misguided, for the ordinary usage is not to talk of a self we have, but rather a self we are. I am a human being, not some self in a human being. When we look in a mirror and say “there I am” that is to indicate “there is a human being that I am.” Similarly, when we state “I had an experience” it is not to talk of some self having this experience, but rather this human being having this experience. Belief in “self” from this ordinary everyday perspective seems quite unproblematic, not really a myth.

Vlasic69 t1_jaty15i wrote on March 4, 2023 at 1:20 AM

That's false, saving the day and being proud of it is not a bad thing nor will it ever be.

taojoannes t1_jauh0zx wrote on March 4, 2023 at 3:57 AM

Define self, glorifying, detrimental, true nature, and "your role" and where applicable prove they exist.

[deleted] t1_jautyow wrote on March 4, 2023 at 6:07 AM

[removed]

[deleted] t1_jauvvmb wrote on March 4, 2023 at 6:30 AM

[deleted]

2penises_in_a_pod t1_jauxzi9 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 6:56 AM

Reads like a narcissist jealous of other narcissists that get attention for their narcissism. The writer needs to do a little more introspection on their “self” before evaluating others’.

jerflash t1_jav2rah wrote on March 4, 2023 at 7:59 AM

You are the main character in your own story. If you do not believe that then you will never get anywhere. You will just continue to follow the path set out by others.

vestigina t1_jav4t0y wrote on March 4, 2023 at 8:27 AM

I thiught this article is about that "self" you think you are, that noisy little bitch inside is prolly not the real you. You don't need to feed this ephemeral little bitch as it will lead to an attachment and suffering of both you and the outside world. I hardly see anything wrong with that.

Am initially confused as most comments reads like being defensive from a gut reaction. It is like that little bitch op was talking about. Most are mentioning something about we must respect the self, we need to put the self in the forefront since that's all we ever have, synonymous to everything "I" am, I think, I do. You don't need the little bitch to achieve that.

lqdizzle t1_javl557 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:15 PM

{Nietzsche has entered the chat}

ClintFlindt t1_javm2i1 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:26 PM

What is this article even about? I don't think this person knows much about neither existential philosphy nor psychology of wellbeing.

"But here is the inconvenient truth: “I am a party/career, coffee/tea, outdoor/indoor, [insert any description] person” is largely a function of the desire to fit in some social groups, to follow what is considered socially “cool”, or the fear of being asked what you like and not knowing how to answer."

Yes, to the first thing - sociality is extremely important for the wellbeing of humans. I dont know what the author mean by the cool part or fear part...

Also, look at this quote:

"Buddhists also agree. Dwelling on the concept of a unitary “self” is foolish because this will lead you astray from the true essence of existence, which is selfless and relational"

What buddhists? What true essence of existence? How do you know what it is about, if it even exists?

"Here is the thing, the inclination to use certain words to describe things likely has no valuable basis, it is simply a habit of mimicking what others have been saying (this explains why the “now you” and the “child you” feel completely different as your information circle changes)."

Yes of course - we are social animals, mimicking others is a good way to create relations - which are super important for our wellbeing. But wait, would the author want us to use *no words* to describe things? And whats up with that use of "likely", why is it likely? Does the author just want to sound academical?

"Useful data comes from genuine real-world effects of your actions — an experimental kind of data instead of generating a dummy dataset with a “for-loop” inside your head."

What does this even mean. USEFUL data - doesnt that depend on the situation? If i want to figure out if i'd rather eat a banana or an apple, wouldn't i want to think about that?

"Remember, you are what you do to the world (a verb), not who you think you are (a noun). Nature is completely blind to the latter, it only reacts to the former"

"Nature" doesn't do anything. Or does the author assume that it is some kind of agent? Isnt our brains nature as well? I feel like my body can react to my thoughts, like if i think about something sad, i will cry tears of water and salt etc.

"Solidifying your “self” — what kind of person you are, your ideal preferences, your becoming, is always dangerous. That’s how Hitler went his own way and destroyed a whole “race”."

What does Hitl... I'm just gonna ignor this one

"The ego of solidifying “me”, “us”, the “one true God” is the leading cause of the extinction of diversity"

I have no idea what any of this means.

If you are interested in the psychology of wellbeing, there is a lot of research that suggests that we tend to have positive illusions about ourselves - meaning that we think that we are better than the average, more happy etc. This seems to be really good for our mental health for a wide range of reasons. S. E. Taylor "Illusions and wellbeing" 1988 is an interesting meta-paper on this topic.

MaxChaplin t1_javm5ag wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:26 PM

The comments here seem to treat it as basically saying "boo team individuality, go team collectivism", and push back against it. But if I interpret it correctly, the message here is closer to "don't strawman yourself", i.e. don't aspire to nail down your essence, because you're likely to declare success prematurely, and then you'll serve that model of yourself that you have built rather than your true self.

ehossain t1_javoao6 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 12:50 PM

But it will get you rich!

[deleted] t1_javpjkj wrote on March 4, 2023 at 1:03 PM

[deleted]

All_Usernames_Tooken t1_javs4xd wrote on March 4, 2023 at 1:29 PM

The desire to fit in or even stand out should not be discouraged. We are very social creatures, it is very in our nature to have a self that identifies with others, in groups small and large.

ignazwrobel t1_javwqvh wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:11 PM

„Case in point, I was tested as an INTP 10 years ago, an INFJ 5 years ago, and just months ago when I re-test out of boredom, I got an ENFJ.“

This is purely anecdotal and without further evidence this can also just be a hint that the MBTI-Tests or the Indicator itself is badly designed. I agree that the importance many people give to these test results is concerning.

To put another anecdotal thing out there: I‘ve always gotten an ENTJ out of these tests, but I would never conclude that either the test is very stable or that I didn’t change much during these years.

Thisisunicorn t1_javxxzy wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:21 PM

Saying that people are too individualistic? Yeah, you know, fine.

Turning your nose up at people saying "I'm a coffee person"? Like... at that point, I think you're not so much expressing a philosophy as expressing an absolutely seething sense of superiority.

Adiwik t1_javzrei wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:35 PM

That is based on being part of a world, if it is even yours to be part of...

mirkomarchetti t1_jaw0btx wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:40 PM

given the sub I thought this was going to be a quality read. I was disappointed quite soon

knifeboy69 t1_jaw2402 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 2:54 PM

most bullshit article i ever read

TitansTaint t1_jawaold wrote on March 4, 2023 at 3:56 PM

I disagree with this with all of my being. Security in self is the root of everything good in this world. When you truly love yourself it is so much easier to understand and love others. It's exactly how you understand the nature of everything. Everything described here is from a fundamental disconnect with their self. It's why they are able to commit such atrocities.

TheFreakish t1_jawd8xx wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:14 PM

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

BernardJOrtcutt t1_jayfc3y wrote on March 5, 2023 at 1:01 AM

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

sn2chemist t1_jazgbjf wrote on March 5, 2023 at 6:41 AM

I agree, but the concept is in such opposition to a lot of western culture and capitalist values. Because of that I think it has to be explained in different words for a lot of people to understand it.

waytogoal OP t1_jazxxqg wrote on March 5, 2023 at 10:42 AM

You are right, it is expected and implicit in the article that the ego will push back after reading such an article (I know I could have done better sounding less condescending though). Nevertheless, it is not about a magic bullet, you just need to plant a seed, this is a long-term process of realization.

arktisXII t1_jb09gfz wrote on March 5, 2023 at 1:08 PM

fucking libs

noor199898 t1_jb6kwsc wrote on March 6, 2023 at 8:38 PM

for how one could ever measure themselves, when one doing the measurement is the phenomenon of measurement itself.

chiefmors t1_jb6uem5 wrote on March 6, 2023 at 9:39 PM

This reads less like an attack on the 'self' and more like a call to not be a shallow person who builds their sense of self by trying to fit in with others.

I also have little tolerance for people who pull Hitler into their blog post though when he has absolutely no place there. There are very few more decisive ways to say you lack confidence in your argument than to invoke Hitler.

ApprehensiveLimaBean t1_jaslapg wrote on March 3, 2023 at 7:35 PM

The self worshiping manifestors are writhing.