HouseOfSteak t1_jas0dxn wrote
>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
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
plssirnomore t1_jav7cwy wrote
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
[deleted]
waytogoal OP t1_jas54sw wrote
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
>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
"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
>"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
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
>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
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
>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
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
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
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
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments