Petal_Chatoyance t1_javhvsh wrote
Reply to comment by dbrodes 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
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
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
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
>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
'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
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
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
It's evident how your solipsistic view of things and your hubris feed each other.
Petal_Chatoyance t1_jb0wy1t wrote
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments