Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

waytogoal OP t1_jaskmhx wrote

Reply to comment by Mustelafan 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

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.

3

Mustelafan t1_jasrrt0 wrote

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.

8

waytogoal OP t1_jatadhj wrote

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.

1

Mustelafan t1_jatd1c8 wrote

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.

1