What is self?

[bernee51]

In another thread the following exchange took place:

"I am god, I am perfect, I have perfect love of myself. No dilemma."

One can not create ones self.

Can you define 'self'?

Buddhists would hold otherwise. We do indeed create our self. It can be no other way.

Then buddhists have no parents? Can a buddhists create them selves from nothing? bc i have never seen someone pop into existence from nothing.

Self - "1. a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality" (dictionary.com)

The implication from the above question...Then buddhists have no parents?...implies that the self is somehow part of the body. Or the whole body. But is that the case? I am a biological being no different, apart from minor functionality, to any of you. For all intents and purposes we are identical biological beings. If it is 'self' that sets us apart, it is obviously not the biological body.


We say "my' limbs, "my" brain, "my" name, "my" comsciousness. Is the 'self' the exclusive owner of these things? If my leg is cut off, my 'self' has lost an arm but itself remains intact. My physical integrity may be diminished, my 'self' however is preserved. If limbs are lost, at what point does the self begin to vanish? We perceive a self as long as we have the power of thought.

Which brings us to Descartes..."I think therefor I am". Does the fact of thought prove anything about the self? Is not the "I" nothing more than the current contents of our mental flow - changing from moment to moment. It is not enough for something to be perceived or conceived of for that thing toexist. We can see a mirage but it has no reality.

The self is a concept of which we can identify no distinct parts but which allows us to conceive of ourselves as single and complete beings.

But does it really exist and if so where is it?

[sledheavy]

I like this one.

Though it maybe irrelevent in a manner or two, I had a philosophy teacher that completely covered this topic pretty well. In fact he created a manuscript which I can't find, but it's not licensed outside the school so he'd probably kill me.

Anyway, he always started by saying, yes the idea of self is merely that, an idea. Thus from his standpoint it was practically everything else in relation to you which defined who you are as an individual.

i.e. (his example) when your born: I

that I grows in a certain way pertaining only to you. Your relations, interests, perspectives, to which no one else can relate. The I is the soul embodiment which controls 85% of the rest of the body, blah blah blah.

Sure we can claim it as ours. But that's too one dimensional. People say they know who they are, when in fact, they really don't. You can't know everyting, and frankly if you do, I'd want to meet you.

Personally I take it as a means of standards and practices. I consider myself only knowing about 35% of myself at this point, and that feels like a stretch. There are limitations to consider, skills to account for, and even thousands of ideas I might find relation to, but it can only relate to me, and no one else.

that's a good part of individuality.

And above all else, I guess we could say that consciousness does inspire something...if you want to talk dreg philosophy from years ago.

Either way, not enough people ask this question, I give you credit.
And I found a lot in Ayn Rand.

[bernee51]

I like this one.

Though it maybe irrelevent in a manner or two, I had a philosophy teacher that completely covered this topic pretty well. In fact he created a manuscript which I can't find, but it's not licensed outside the school so he'd probably kill me.

Anyway, he always started by saying, yes the idea of self is merely that, an idea. Thus from his standpoint it was practically everything else in relation to you which defined who you are as an individual.

i.e. (his example) when your born: I

that I grows in a certain way pertaining only to you. Your relations, interests, perspectives, to which no one else can relate. The I is the soul embodiment which controls 85% of the rest of the body, blah blah blah.

Sure we can claim it as ours. But that's too one dimensional. People say they know who they are, when in fact, they really don't. You can't know everyting, and frankly if you do, I'd want to meet you.

Personally I take it as a means of standards and practices. I consider myself only knowing about 35% of myself at this point, and that feels like a stretch. There are limitations to consider, skills to account for, and even thousands of ideas I might find relation to, but it can only relate to me, and no one else.

that's a good part of individuality.

And above all else, I guess we could say that consciousness does inspire something...if you want to talk dreg philosophy from years ago.

Either way, not enough people ask this question, I give you credit.
And I found a lot in Ayn Rand.

thanks for the reply.

I don't think it is possible to quantify knowledge of the 'self'. Either you realize the nature of being or you don't. That said, intellectual realization is not the same as living the realization.

Re: Ayn Rand. From my readings of her work I took it that she felt there was nothing but the individual, that the individual self is the be all and end all of existence. I think this is 100% counter to what I am saying. The 'self' Ayn Rand talks of is the very thing which is a figment of the mind.

[AClockWorkOrange]

Ayn Rand puts such an importance on the self, becuase that self (regardless of it being an illusion) is the only relivent point of observance.

a lie can be relivent if it is ones only means of existance.

[sledheavy]

maybe my point is the only clear evidence I see in self actualization, is derived through experience in self understanding.

Unfortunately, 'the notion of the self' is probably one of the very few things in life I relate to nearly 100%.

Pardon my bias.

[Cathar1950]

I am enjoying the thread.
The self has always been an interesting concept and construction.
I tend to see it related to consciousness as well as self-consciousness yet much of it is
Sub-conscious. Of course it is not as interesting as me.
Freud separated it into three parts largely to get some kind of hold on it.
We have come a long way and still it is illusive and hard to pinpoint.
I think for I am has often had a critic that when Descartes said “I” he had already confirmed his existence or self. The thinking was something he did over the self or it was something the self was engaged in. I just found an old book on the science of Consciousness. I have many books on the self I should also dig out.
There is no simple answer, definition or explanation.
Like you mentioned if you lose a leg you are still yourself while certainly the self has changed as well as your self-concept.
Then there is self-esteem.
I guess it is somewhat an illusion like trees are illusions that are very real.
The sun does not go around the earth yet we have sunsets. I guess we should be calling it
the earth turning its back or front.
I think I know me yet still at my age I see things in me thru others perceptions that seem off but somehow true.
The self has a history. I remember being me at 10 with a much different concept of myself. But it was I. They say as babies we are the center of our universe and as we interact we expand that center to include our feet that we might place in out mouths. Then include to others.
I am looking forward to more after I get some sleep where I will be unconscious except in dreams where I think I am conscience; at least I remember them that way.

[bernee51]

I am enjoying the thread.
The self has always been an interesting concept and construction.
I tend to see it related to consciousness as well as self-consciousness yet much of it is
Sub-conscious.

What is the relationship between self and consciousness. By seld here I am talking of the sense of the individual self. is this 'self' somehow projected on consciousness - or a projection of consciousness? And as such has no reality in and of itself.

I think I know me yet still at my age I see things in me thru others perceptions that seem off but somehow true.
The self has a history. I remember being me at 10 with a much different concept of myself. But it was I.

The mind has memories which we build into a sense of self. As you point out the concept of self you had at age 10 is different to that you have now...but the Self (consciousness) is the same.

[bernee51]

Ayn Rand puts such an importance on the self, becuase that self (regardless of it being an illusion) is the only relivent point of observance.

a lie can be relivent if it is ones only means of existance.

Ayn rand was more concerned, I think, with reason, or rather the might of reason, over ignorance. While I have not read widely of her philosophical writings I got the impression she would have held very firmly to the view that each individual is a self unto itself.

[bernee51]

maybe my point is the only clear evidence I see in self actualization, is derived through experience in self understanding.

How do you define self-actualiztion?

Unfortunately, 'the notion of the self' is probably one of the very few things in life I relate to nearly 100%.

It is the only thing that most relate to 100%. Religion (despite what the religious hold) is purely about the self.

[roxid]

One can not create ones self.

Can you define 'self'?

Buddhists would hold otherwise. We do indeed create our self. It can be no other way.