philosophy of self

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by vajrasattva

I pose the question, Who are we really? What is it that constitutes an individual? How can we know ourselves? Why are we here? How do we know we exist? There is no right answer but I would like to know what you all think.

I think according to buddhist philosophy. Their is no self because their is no first cause (if you dont know the theory of no first cause states that the string of things that brought us up to this point is infinite and as such can have no begining). And the things that we see in the self do not make up the self so we are here but their is no permanent thing that defines the self.

Interested to see yalls thought.

peace

If someone hit's my car with no intention on hiting my car, if you belived that concept and lived by it, you could not lay blame on that person, nor could you blame the event's that led them to the spot where they hit you, for you would have to trace it back to the first action that resulted in the first reaction. hence the blame of all thing's lay's on the first action that intern created the first reaction. some think big bang, other's say god.

But you presented it in the way , speaking that there is no start or no first action. Here is an example that support's that way of thinking

You use your hand and grab a cup, that would be an action, yet it's realy an reaction from you thinking to grab the cup, so the real action would be you thinking to grab the cup, yet you thinking to grab the cup would still be a reaction created from the action that led you to think to grab the cup with your arm.

So the big bang would have been the first action that started all reaction's and all other action's, so forth and so forth, yet the big bang would still be an reaction created from an action before it, and that action also would only be an reaction from another action before it, so forth and so forth. Same thing can be said with the concept of the point of creation of god, hence the first cause or first action is like an infinite loop.

So this is also what led people back in the past to say god has allway's been, they must have came across the same branch of thought as I to lead them to a point that the first action/cause that started or made all other cause's/action's is infinit, yet they didnt have to word back then to display that concept so of course they used somthing els to display it. Anyways thats another story.

So the begining is an infinit loop of action and reaction's, yet all action's would be reaction's from a action before it (infinitly Looping), as displayed in the example of you grabing a cup, you can allways trace back to find the first action that led you into grabing the cup, yet there will allway's be a point were you would not be able to trace back any farther, which long ago led people to the concept of a creator, that had to make everything for it to be as it is now/then.

But the theory of no first cause states that the string of things that brought us up to this point is infinite and as such can have no begining, dose not explain why the thing's that brought us to this end point is infinite, if they had thought that far into there theory, they would have alterd it to an infinitly looping begining. Based on the example's based off there own function's of there bodie's movement's while interacting with other object's/people.

I like a theorictical fact proven by are intelectual thought's better than a theory ^.^. I hope you found my thoughts of such a concept intresting, for I did like allway's

[de_budding]

I been pondering the implications of such a 'loop' on freedom recently,
interesting
Dan,

[boagie]

kodiejelly,

It was my impression that Atman mean't the world soul. Schopenhaurer named his little dog Atman [world soul]. As to the process or devolopement of a personal identity, this is aquired from the context around them at their birth and then there after. I think identity is a very exclusive process, in that, we decern our I or persoanl identity by what we determine is not I. So the limits of famiularity with the content of ones context is the limit of the process of identity formation. Identity is exlcusionary.

The ego is what you might say I can do, how talented I am, how much money do I have, it is a self evaluation at any given time, in one context one might feel superior to the other, in another context one might feel ashamed of ones ego [self]. It can cause great difficulties in on going dialogue if the distinction is not made quite clear in the begining.

The real self you might say is the essence of life, immutable. Not subject or susceptible to change or variation in form or quality or its nature. As the Upanishads put it, "The Self In One Is The Self In All" so, between the selfs there is no differance.

[Didymos Thomas]

It was my impression that Atman mean't the world soul

In Hinduism the word is supposed to mean 'true self'. Of course, what true self is can be debated. Some (in Hinduism) hold a monistic position where the individual atman is identified as Atman, the world soul. Dualists differentiate between the individual Atman and the Paramatman, the Supreme Soul.

Much of this philosophical division in Hinduism comes after Buddhism has already become a dominant religious force in the region and spread to other nations. Sort of like philosophical responses to Buddhist criticism.

[iconoclast]

We are an evolutioinary animal, experiencing a distinction between self and the outside world that, intellectualized, becomes a fiction. Our body is what we actually are - and this can be demostrated with reference to stroke victims, who having suffered damage to the brain,suffer impairment of thier concept of self. According to Dr. Jonathon Miller, author of 'the Body in Question' (1979), one of his patients thought that the nurses had stuck someone elses arm onto his body, and another thought that his twin brother was sewn to his back.

[de_budding]

When stroke victims suffer damage to the right side of the brain they can sometimes develop Hemingfield Neglect, the condition's symptoms are... losing half your world!?

The patients can't see anything that is to their right (from the center of their on body), but it is not as simple as that because they don't realize it, it's as if they can't comprehend it or it simply doesn't exist. The behavior of patients demonstrates this; one might eat only the food on the Left of his plate not finishing until the plate is turned, shaving only half their face as if it doesn't exist or ignoring people who stand toward the right. Italian neurologist Edoardo Bisiach got patients to imagine and describe a cathedral they all knew very well, on approach from one direction they could only describe the left hand side buildings and details, and claimed not to know of anything other, but when he got them to describe the cathedral and approach as if they were walking from the opposite direction they forgot everything they just described and could only recall what they had previously claimed to not know when aprouching from the opposite direction.

I think this demonstrates a huge amount of conscious dependency on the brain.

Dan

[iconoclast]

dear all, i didn't realize this space was reserved for young philosophers - which speaks volumes for the high quality of your arguments - or my low standards! all the possibilities must be acknowledged! regards, iconoclast.

[boagie]

I second the motion, but perhaps there should not be segregation of the young. At anyrate, if it is to be, I shall refrain from posting here.

[simon]

Consider what you already stated. Supposing there is no individual as such...

Then there is one greater self and we are all aspects of that self. The greater would be hinted at through aspects of the parts and each of the parts would be purely a single perspective of the greater self.

lol I'll try that in english. In your scenario, you have a ball. The greater self. Arranged around that ball are bits of curved glass. Look at the ball from any point through some of the curved glass. That's your individual. If the individual is just an aspect of the greater self, does it matter? If I cease to be, does it matter? In essence if this is the case, we can all cease to be and yet it would make no difference and matter not at all, for the greater self, be we aware of it or not, would continue to be, and in essence, so would we.

Are these the questions you were asking?

[simon]

p.s. Atumn / Atuman and various other spellings - see ancient egyption.