InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jas5dng wrote
Reply to comment by waytogoal in Glorifying the "self" is detrimental to both the individual and the larger world. It neither helps you find your true nature, nor your role in the larger world. by waytogoal
>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
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
>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
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
>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
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
>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
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments