philosophy of self

[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

[boagie]

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

vajrasattva,

I think a distinction needs to be made between ego and the self, the ego has the ability to be transformed while the self does not. It has been said that, "The Self In One Is The Self In All", Upanishads. I think this is true, as long as there is life, there will always be an "I". The "I" is the self and has no identity other than immediacy of experience. Personal identity to, is not the self, it is ego dressed in the clothing of context.

[Didymos Thomas]

vajrasattva - Even Buddhist tradition speaks of a true self, as opposed to the illusory self.

Boagie -

"The Self In One Is The Self In All", Upanishads. I think this is true, as long as there is life, there will always be an "I".

Ah, but if what we call your self and my self is one self in all, then this one self is not "I", it's more of a "we".

For this sort of thread, definitions are vital. I like where boagie begins - distinguishing between "self" and "ego".

The "I" is the self and has no identity other than immediacy of experience. Personal identity to, is not the self, it is ego dressed in the clothing of context.

So then you are saying that self is simply what is experiencing at the very moment of the experience?

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

vajrasattva - Even Buddhist tradition speaks of a true self, as opposed to the illusory self.

Didy,

Isn't the buddhist "self" the opposite of the western "self" though?

[Didymos Thomas]

Isn't the buddhist "self" the opposite of the western "self" though?

We have to be careful of language - I do not know Sanskrit or Tibetan, and I imagine I'm in the majority on that.

Atman might be compared to western notions of self. Ignorance, driven by the mistaken belief in Atman, is supposed to be the root of suffering. Or something like that.

[vajrasattva]

as i understand it the true self in Buddhism is emptiness, and as such, if the true self can be felt it is not the true self Buddhist philosophy is divinely transcendental. It deals in contradiction because the nature of reality is all encompassing. So its meaning contains each thing and its opposite. So because their is a self their is no self and vice versa the only way to see the truth in this is to sit back and be in the moment because as soon as we start to grasp we loose awareness of the moment The idea here is not to gain any knowledge of anything, but to gain insight into reality and its causes so one can know the truth of his or her own existance

[soullight]

The "I" is made up of a collection of expereinces, which is always evolving to create futher expansions on the concept of self, as being aware, of it self, as being an I. The I represents our search for the Origin of awareness, as it is awareness that allows one to percieve one self as being an I. We understand that we are individual segments of creation that can make choices and create an expereince on indivdual levels. This seperateness from everthing else, even though we are interconnected and so can relate and respond to inanimate and animate objects and life forms. We have an inate sense of belonging to the whole, while at the same time knowing that we are individual elements. The I

[kodiejelly]

Oooh my first post! Although i am over seventeen, I hope this is allowed!

Atman might be compared to western notions of self. Ignorance, driven by the mistaken belief in Atman, is supposed to be the root of suffering. Or something like that.

I am learning about Atman currently at A2 in our philosophy of religion class on the body/soul distinction, the problem of personal identity and the different beliefs of monism and dualism. We have so far been taught that in Hinduism, the Atman is most literally translated as the 'eternal soul' and is trying to reach 'Moksha', a sort of release from the cycle of reincarnation, similar to the Buddhist enlightenment.

Yet in here (if I have read correctly) we are talking of Atman as a Buddhist word? Is it a universal word for a similar Eastern concept, have I been taught wrong, am I totally on the wrong track or are there two separate ideas?

I feel confused, please may somebody clear this up for me!?
Thank you in advance.

________________________

In response to the general question though, I myself have not yet decided what I feel constitutes 'I', although I would lean to the materialist view that we are just a body and a brain, with no separate 'soul' or 'I', and that when the body dies, the brain dies, and the 'I' of you dies.
I also feel that the question you first asked is in fact questionS-

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?

To me, these are all very different questions and it would appear that so far we are mostly addressing the first question, who are we and what constitutes our individual, or our 'I', our personal identity.
As these questions are all linked, but all very large in their own right I think it is best that we concentrate on the first. Although you hold the Buddhist view which I do not know very much at all about, my humble learning consists of learning the two main different views of the personal identity, from monist and dualist thinkers.

Dualist thinkers are those such as Plato and Descartes, who feel that the soul is distinct and separate from the body and that it what constitutes 'I'. This is also the belief in reincarnation or rebirth prominent in Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism- if rebirth is possible, then the soul is something different from the body that can survive independently of it.

Monist thinkers can be those who believe that the soul and body are one, such as Hick and his Replica Theory and the Christian tradition of resurrection- the physical body is what identifies you and makes the 'I', the body and soul are as one and cannot be separated. Other monist thinkers have no belief in a soul and one interesting such thinker is Gilbert Ryle, classifying the whole idea of a soul as a 'category mistake'- the soul is just your characteristics and personality, which comes from your physical body and your brain- there is no separate 'ghost in the machine' as he called it. Dawkins too, believes that there is no such soul to be the self, or 'I'- we are simply our genes and DNA and our physical body and the brain gives us our self in the sense of person and character.

I have gone a little off topic, but I do believe that the purpose of this topic was to enlighten each other to different views, and although I have not presented a debate my aim was to give a brief introduction to some other ways of thinking, as we had mostly discussed an eastern view.

There is no right answer but I would like to know what you all think.

I do hope that this has helped and I am very interested to hear more of boagie's distinction between ego and self. I am totally clueless as to this- are we speaking of the Freudian ego or something different?

Thank you for this enjoyable discussion! ^.^

[de_budding]

When we use the pronoun 'I', it is a dual term which references the physical body which everyone else recognises as us but, at the same time it references the conscious entity that drives the physical body giving birth to the body's character traits- Gilbert Ryle's characteristics and personality.

I would agree with Ryle and Dawkins in as much as the 'soul' is often a misinterpretation of the ‘I’ related to personality and character and furthermore, I would agree that when the brain dies that the soul/ghost/spirit/'I' also perishes. But I wouldn't be so quick to assert that the conscious entity (ghost/spirit/'I') is the brain.

Language, our sensual equipment and the brain jointly give birth to perception and experience which must jointly manifest the sense of self we all have. If there was ever one defining feature of 'the machine' that could be considered ‘the conscious entity’ it would most likely be memory, without the memory we become a spotlight of consciousness trapped in the 'now', not able to learn, compare, analyse etc. all of which is futile without memory. There is a second degree of consciousness beyond plain experience which is the ‘I’ and it requires memory to be able to exist, its content is therefore all linked to or based on experience which ties in nicely to the film ‘Ghost in the Shell’- which expresses this opinion with an allegory of cyborgs which learn consciousness through experience and memory. With this idea of the ‘I’ we can see why Ryle is right to describe the soul as a misinterpretation of a person’s characters and personality but wrong to shackle this entity to the body, while it exists the ‘I’ is reliant on the body but not the body per se.

Alas I would have to admit that the sentiment of Ryle's derogatory phrase- 'ghost in the machine'- encapsulates my opinion of the self more accurately than I might like to admit. I would say I'm a 1.5ist- midway between monism and dualism... the consciousness is a product of the body, it comes from the body and is intrinsic to the body but it must be somewhat separate to exist externally giving way to 2nd order consciousness- the ability to recognise our bodies as part of the environment; it is that which does the recognising of the body which would be the 'I'.

Perhaps my opinion is a little fuzzy but I guess I just think that when analysing monism and dualism I think it is healthy to appreciate that there is room for both between.

Dan.

[Didymos Thomas]

I am learning about Atman currently at A2 in our philosophy of religion class on the body/soul distinction, the problem of personal identity and the different beliefs of monism and dualism. We have so far been taught that in Hinduism, the Atman is most literally translated as the 'eternal soul' and is trying to reach 'Moksha', a sort of release from the cycle of reincarnation, similar to the Buddhist enlightenment.

Yet in here (if I have read correctly) we are talking of Atman as a Buddhist word? Is it a universal word for a similar Eastern concept, have I been taught wrong, am I totally on the wrong track or are there two separate ideas?

I feel confused, please may somebody clear this up for me!?
Thank you in advance.

Good question. It sounds like your were taught correctly. In Hinduism Atman is the eternal soul trying to reach Moksha. Buddhism emerged in India, not as an independent religion per se, but as a sort of Hindu reform movement spurred by the teachings of the Buddha. So the Buddhist rejection of Atman (and the Hindu theology around Atman) is a criticism of Hinduism.