What Constitutes the Self?

I haven't posted in a while, but I'd like to discuss a problem that I've been thinking a lot about (and having a lot of trouble with) lately. Of what is the self constituted? What is it made out of? What it really boils down to is do you believe in a constant, eternal "I" behind everything you experience, or is the self just the sum total of experience? What is the role of language in the construction of the self? And there's a lot of room here to stray off topic, so please take advantage of that. When you're dealing with the question of what makes you you, there's a lot one can discuss.

Right now I'm leaning towards the idea that Descartes severly crippled philosophy for a few hundred years and that I am the sum total of my experiences. I've also been reading up on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and think it can have some interesting consequences when applied to the study of the self. But I can get more into that later. What do you all think?

P.S. There's been a serious lack of philosophical discussion here lately. Too bad philosophy often takes a back-seat to religion here.

 

I think that question is one nobody in the universe can answer for you.


If you find your "self" then you find all the secrets of the universe, finding the self is something many devote many years of practice to and their legacy is left not in an answer to your question but a way towards finding out for yourself.

Too be honest I'm not sure about the soul. I used to believe in it, changed my mind when studying Buddhism and now I'm not sure.

I reckon that if there is a soul, it is exactly who you are at any given moment. It is you now, right now, not anywhen else, with all your defects and all of the things you hate about yourself. Yet it is pure, and the defects only give it it's innocence.

On the other hand, there is no self, there is only now.

Blessings

Sebbi

 

I, for one, would be interested to know what "You" think "self" is in relation to "yourself".


Is self the hand? foot? leg? head? neck? fingers? toes? ears? eyes? nose? mouth? a collection of all of these?

Remove the hand. Is the self in the hand?

Remove your eyes. Is the self in your eyes?

The self is perceived differently for each individual, but has anyone ever really came up with the answer of what the self is?

We can speculate ... ponder ... meditate on what self is, but, have we ever really come to a conclusion what the self is? Truly is?

My ponderings lead me to believe that the self are the things we cling and crave and these things are mere moments that have already happened so we attach to them as if we can truly posess them. Always identifying our "self" as being separate from that which we cling to ...

So ... tell me ... what does all this mean to you, Hammer?

Perhaps I can get a better perspective or understanding on what you are really looking for ...

Darrell

 

The real self - could it be the 'knower' in us? I mean that in us which is conscious, or is consciousness, seemingly in an individualized 'package'.

Not the ideas about a self of which this is conscious. Not any of the content of consciousness, but the thing itself.

 

Q: Of what is the self constituted?

My answer is just based on my personal beliefs, so it's probably not as accurate as if a philosopher defined it with big words. =P But here it is anyway ...

The self is comprised of everything pertainant to your ego. That is, your identity as separate from all else. Your identity and all things that are pertainant constitutes the self.

I believe that identity is directly related to the soul; that having a soul (which I believe we all do, which is why philosophers would probably have a different answer) that is separate from the souls of other people, and (if you believe such) the soul of G-d (or whatever other deity(s) you believe in).

Our unique identity comes from the fact that our souls are separate from other souls in this realm. However, the self is not constituted by that identity alone; the self also includes the physical body of a person, and on top of that, the mind and mental state of a person. Those 3 things, in conjunction with eachother, are what we call the self. (At least to my interpretation)

There ... hope that you agree with me. If not ... well, I guess that's what we're here to share, right? =)

 

wow, good question...i've been given this kind of question in some of my sociology modules at uni...

well, basically your identity is confomed by two: self identity=your own imput to identity and social identity=others perception of your exterior and recognition of performance
that in other words is the "me" (self) and the "i" (social)

what makes you what you are is influenced by your social experiences and your environment, however, biology has also some influence in what makes your identity
i cant give you any examples cos i am running out of time, but still, i think it's hard to find the right answer to a question like this. we can only speculate.

anyway..good question.

 

I think it comes down to the way your brain is wired. There are more neural connections in your brain than atoms in the universe, so the total number of "possible selves" is an astronomically huge number.

If the neural connections in your brain change because, say, you form a new memory, are you still the same person? I say no. You are a similar person, undoubtedly, but your "mind" is not the same as it was before you made the memory.

I don't think the "self" is defined by any body part other than the brain, nor do I think it is defined by some immaterial soul. Neurology will give us more insight into ourselves in the next few decades.

 

What constitutes the self?



I think (to some extend like Freud and Lacan) the self is composed of 2 different layers:


1) The First and the Core Layer that has the inner codes. The biological self

2) The second Layer that has the outer codes. The social self


The first Layer (we can call it our mind's skeleton) posseses some structural codes. These codes are necessary to keep us alive biologically not socially. Among them are our instincts (of pain, plessure, feeding, breeding, sheltering, agression and some fears that still need to be discovered) and genetic codes that our precedents pass to us. They work just like the BIOS of computers but with a plus, they store the excelled abilities our ancestors have had. Like a RAM remembering your PC’s configurations.


The Second Layer covering the basic layer (skeleton) is composed of the First layer and itself. (I dont think of these layers as unconnected and pure. I think the First Layer’s tiny little roots are within our Second Layer, just like splinters and they are always ready to erupt.)

Anyway, in the second layer, we store what ever we learn and experience. When we experience something, we gain knowledge. But who is the librarian that stores pieces of knowledge and according to what? I think it is our Instincts that we use as basic filters in storing the data. That’s how we learned that excessive pain kills us (our biological fuse is fainting).

Then we strived for plessure delivering experiences. But everybody around us was trying to do the same. (skipping 1.500.000 years) Thus, we became social. We were taught (or we learned) the ways of negotiating, cooperating and having ourselves admitted to some groups.

But how did that happen? Through a mutual material: Language.

A language is made up of symbols. We named those symbols. When I say “tree” your brain calls the symol that sound stands for in English (our brains become multiplayer, that’s how we laugh at jokes). We all, picture a tree (though everyone of us pictures a different type of tree* ) then talk about the bird on it, and then talk about hunting it. We create a common way of doing things, surviving and enjoying the benefits. This common way is one of our greatest cultural elements. We enrich that cultural set by adding new symbols (discoveries, ideas) and new relations to those symbols. Symbols have relations because they are valued over our pain/plessure instincts.

To sum up, the second layer is composed of the outer values, the codes that we need to survive socially. In relation to those values, relations, accomplishments and failures we shape our second layer. We become “a good citizen” , “a good mother” or a bad mother fucker. “A bad mother fucker”; because in most societies incest is strictly prohibited.

Thus, the self is always evolving by interacting with the updated social values’ relations to inner values and by re-orienting itSELF accordingly. When you change your social environment, or when the social pressures on your first layer’s “pain and plessure” driven “librarian” is lifted, your first layer’s desires may erupt.

Example: If you’re alone with a girl on an Island, you may not be ashamed of raping her. Your first layer, may “enjoy” its benefits of being more powerful.
It is proven that alcohol’s effect is just like that of island’s. When you consume too much alcohol, your social layer’s mask drops, and people see the “nasty” greedy side of yours.

So you see, there isnt only 1 self. But there are 2, and they interact. Although the second one’s limits are drawn in the first one.

*post modern critical theory.

 

Well, I really don't know much about it, which is why I'm asking. But there are a few things I feel I know for certain. I know I have become very critical of the Cartesian idea of the self as a single, conscious, metaphysically dubious being that lies somewhere behind me. I know that the Humean or Nietzschean view of the self as (to oversimplify) the sum total of one's experiences. I know that linguistic and cultural elements play a role in the formation of the self, and, consequently, how we think. I am critical of positting the existence of one, let alone many, entities which exist separately from the body. I'm not saying that everything is necessarily material, just that body, self, mind, and soul are words that ultimately mean the same thing, and that the many of these cannot be experienced emirically. I also feel that instinct is crucial to the developement of the self, and that a lack of instinct is a kind of sickness.

Maybe I can somehow connect these ideas into something vaguely resembling a system, but then again I could be dead wrong.

 

By "self" I take it you are talking about the ego. In that case it comes from past experiences and mind projections of the future. (if it weren't for the ego, our only differences would pertain to physical traits and gender; we're all of the same species). The illusionary self is pure insanity, it holds no relevance to anything in the eternal present. As long as our focus remains in the past or on mind projections of the future we deny the eternal present. It may sound crazy, but the only way we can truly acknowlege our own existance is by silencing the chatter of the mind (the ego self goes with it). Thought only happens as a reaction after or before an experience occurs (those past memories or mind projections). The only place we can actually exist is in the eternal present. I believe there is an eternal "I" behind all of mental noise of the egoic mind (or "the self"), though not in the sense of the physical form. By "I", I mean existance. (think about it this way the pronoun "I" can only be used by someone in existance).
Anyway, sure language has it's part in the creation of the self, I think miscommunication can lead to negative or false aspects in the self, and on the flip side clear communication leads to positive or negative aspects in the self, all depending on the way the self interprets the communication.

 

Why all the big fuss and complication? This probably sounds like Descartes and/but regardless of what has been said above (my view is that) the self is everything I experience.

Is there anything else worthwhile to add to that?

Well there is a certain sense of continuity that seems to be important. I believe I am the same self I was yesterday. Through memory I believe or I seem to find that I have the same tastes and preferences as yesterday."Yep that's me." I also seem to have the same body as yesterday and find it in the same physical setting and that also gives things a sense of continuity and thus of "self".

Because of the unsolved philosophic problems these represent of course I (1)cannot be sure that I am not the only entity who is conscious (solipism) in which case there is no other self. And (2) I am not acquainted with what it is like for anyone else to be conscious, I don't know what they experience if they indeed are conscious, if anyone else is conscious...

Actually there's another interesting way of approaching the question. One can ask "What would it take for me to feel that I was not myself or feel that I did not know who I was"? What I have said just above maybe anticipates some of the answers to this question. But in this connection I do have an interesting experience to relate. Sometimes when I have been sleep deprived for an extended period and then fall asleep for just a few minutes and am suddenly wakened then sometimes for a short period maybe 10 seconds or so even if I am in familiar surroundings with familiar people I do not know where I am or who the people are, it's like fairly complete amnesia, it's not a pleasant feeling, and yes as I recall for that short period I'm not reallly sure who I am so I guess I would say there's a loss of self. It really is a very unusual feeling and it's not pleasant. Although maybe I could wake up to be someone better and that wouldn't be so bad. But how woulld I know I am not my former self? How in fact do I know that I'm not someone different fom yesterday? How in fact do I know that anything in the past ever existed and was not created just a second ago? In fact I cannot answer these questions. I DON'T know. All I can really tell you is that right now I feel I am myself and I feel I've been myself for years. But I could be wrong.

God's world sucks.

Another weird thing with philosophical repercussions, maybe even to the current discussion: sometimes in dreams I have memories of things that never happened! "Oh yeah I remember that" it happens in the dream but what I feel I remember is something that never happened (that I know of) so it's not a legitimate memory (that I know of). (And also of course as is well known people will testify to things that never really happened.)

 

lately i been touching a nothingness , and it is of the organic me . it's a desparate , anxious feeling to acknowledge this part of existence . then i was tempted to fill it with something . with what - a mythology ? i chose not to do any such thing , and subsequently i found it hard to do anything at all ego-wise since then . as i'm getting more peaceful with it i'm thinking the void is good , that it is necessary to free-will . i am not so much caused to do anything very particular . like , if i allow an ideology or even a tomato to fill the emptiness , i'd be enslaved to a helpless self-causation and the illusion of rightous completeness . a tomato ? well , maybe the void can be harmlessly fooled with a bit because sometimes you do what you gotta to survive in the movies .

 

People need to give "free will" a second thought.

 

yes , the creative self .... to make good choices .

 

identity is a lie we create to comfort us with the illusion that we continue to exist, separate and apart from our objects of perception

 

If you had the "choice" of jumping off a cliff or not and "decided" not to, would that be an example of 'free will'?

 

nothing exists, whether it is of the self, others, or nothing at all nagarjuna