Incorrect.No, it's correct. I think you're trying to construct a "reality view", a perspective that you can inhabit, that is comfortable and makes sense. And that's great! Everybody does that. We all conceive the reality that is most emotionally comfortable for ourselves. Your's here at this time though is "under construction". It's hitting the boundaries of rationality. Again nothing wrong with that....but you shouldn't try to vociferously argue your perspective on other people who disagree or don't see it your way. You can run with this worldview forever, carry that baggage that you have already revealed to us. But trying to rearrange the geometry to fit your views and expecting everyone else to fit in the geometry too, is irrational. Your ideas that everyone is fake and copies is not well grounded. It's grist for philosophical meanderings... But your stubborn insistence belies a deeper struggle within yourself. And like I said, you've already tipped your hand on other issues. That's ok. There is no baggage, just questions that people have been unable to answer. The idea that everyone is fake is more grounded than you believe. The illusion of a true self or an authentic one is what pervades most of society at the moment. People don't realize that such a thing does not exist.
There is no baggage, just questions that people have been unable to answer. The idea that everyone is fake is more grounded than you believe. The illusion of a true self or an authentic one is what pervades most of society at the moment. People don't realize that such a thing does not exist.Well this theme can't start like this. Everyone who takes part in this discussion has to be on the same page about sub-parts of this theme. Authentic or Self for starters. Only when everyone is on the same page about self, true self or authentic can we move onto whether they are illusions or not. Or what people realize exists and doesn't exist. Otherwise we have 3-5 people just talking past one another as each has their own ideas about what "authentic" or "self" means. First, and this could take 20 pages, you have to explain what "self" is.
How can I describe what doesn’t exist?
How can I describe what doesn't exist?Well that's a start then. "The Self". It's attached to other words like: your, his, her, my, inflating, adhesive, starting, as well as selfish and other words etc.. So we know it's a word that we use. So it has meaning already. "There's doughnuts, help yourself". Or perhaps more to the point, "I can see myself in the mirror." Now you go. Fill it in. Debate. Disagree. Add stuff.
But where is this self? It’s not the thoughts that occur in your head. The only other thing is the body, but that’s just a physical construct. Nothing people like or do is a part of the self, they’re just actions.
But where is this self? It's not the thoughts that occur in your head. The only other thing is the body, but that's just a physical construct. Nothing people like or do is a part of the self, they're just actions.Ok, I say it is the thoughts that occur in your head. It is the other people you observe. There is no actual "self". Just like there is no soul inside of people. But it is a construct of language we use to describe a contained, unit. It means One. A unit. One in a series of many. Something can act on a self, but not another self. Or something can act on many selves, but not other selves. Also, a self can act upon other things or selves. So we use it to identify a specific unit. Or self. Or ourselves. You can pick out a photograph of yourself in a group of people. Now remember, stay on the definition of "self" here first. Don't go off on illusions of self, or other avenues until we agree on what "self" is. If we can... Even though you say it doesn't exist, I think I just laid down some examples that should be hard to dispute.
But where is this self? It's not the thoughts that occur in your head. The only other thing is the body, but that's just a physical construct. Nothing people like or do is a part of the self, they're just actions.Ok, I say it is the thoughts that occur in your head. It is the other people you observe. There is no actual "self". Just like there is no soul inside of people. But it is a construct of language we use to describe a contained, unit. It means One. A unit. One in a series of many. Something can act on a self, but not another self. Or something can act on many selves, but not other selves. Also, a self can act upon other things or selves. So we use it to identify a specific unit. Or self. Or ourselves. You can pick out a photograph of yourself in a group of people. Now remember, stay on the definition of "self" here first. Don't go off on illusions of self, or other avenues until we agree on what "self" is. If we can... Even though you say it doesn't exist, I think I just laid down some examples that should be hard to dispute. You can replace each term with the word "body" and get the same results. What you are describing are bodies, not selves. People would work as well to describe humans. You could also use the term human to describe it. But of the definitions you list is a "self". The self is used to refer to something beyond the physical body. It is the sense of "you" that is being referred. The same thing applies to a group. The only thing is that this sense is an illusion. The self doesn't refer to anything physical.
You can replace each term with the word "body" and get the same results. What you are describing are bodies, not selves. People would work as well to describe humans. You could also use the term human to describe it. But of the definitions you list is a "self". The self is used to refer to something beyond the physical body. It is the sense of "you" that is being referred. The same thing applies to a group. The only thing is that this sense is an illusion. The self doesn't refer to anything physical.Don't go to the illusion part yet. Are we in agreement that the concept of "self" is a term to describe a contained unit. A unit that can operate independently of it's own design or in conjunction with other things for various designs. A self-inflating mattress. It requires no pump. Self-sealing envelopes. Requires no outside help like mucilage or licking. She can do it herself. The word "herself" isn't needed. She can do it is acceptable. But herself means she requires no other units to help her. We cannot replace the word "self" with "body" or "human" in these constructs. So we see that the word "self" is just a language construct. It is a word used to identify units by their characters or traits. So it's just a word. It can be the sense of you or him, or it. The car starts itself. So is there anything you want to add or disagree with concerning "self". The definition that is.. It's a concept. It can be used to describe physical or mental constructs. if I say I cut myself-that's describing something physical. That doesn't go beyond the physical body. If I say he doesn't seem himself, that's describing a conceptualization which is possibly non-physical.(but not really) Can you add anything to the definition of the word self? Do you recognize it's use in language? Yes? No? It's a language construct for identifying contained units. Physical units. Is there something else you want to add?
You still fail. The self doesn’t refer to anything physical, that’s why your definition fails. There is nothing to attribute a self to.
You can replace self with automatic in your cases and it achieves the same result. The car started automatically. The mattress inflates automactically.
It isn’t used to describe a contained unit. It refers to intangible properties beyond the unit (which don’t exist). It’s a mild form of personification.
Remember, “self” doesn’t refer to anything physical.
You still fail. The self doesn't refer to anything physical, that's why your definition fails. There is nothing to attribute a self to. You can replace self with automatic in your cases and it achieves the same result. The car started automatically. The mattress inflates automatically. It isn't used to describe a contained unit. It refers to intangible properties beyond the unit (which don't exist). It's a mild form of personification. Remember, "self" doesn't refer to anything physical.Right I agree. It's just a language construct. A word. I thought about it and I think it doesn't ever have to be used in speaking. It can be replaced with other words. Or like I said earlier, One can say She can do it herself, or one can say she can do it. Or she can do it alone etc etc.. Ok, so let's say we are in agreement that the word "self" is unnecessary. It's used in language very heavily but we can get by without it. We could get into a discussion about how the word evolved in language and it's meaning as a reflection of evolutionary psychology upon language. Because a word like self would definitely fall into that category. As opposed to say tree or water.
I know there is a proper name for Tita's fallacy, but I call it the "it's just" fallacy. It happens when you see something about a thing then say that thing is "just" that. So, humans are "just" copies of other humans. Well, we're certainly no perfect copies, we're different from any other type of copy I know of. Or, we're just products of our environment. Sure, but we're a unique product. I could go on.Well we aren't unique products and some people very well are copies of others. Humans are less unique then they believe themselves to be. Is not really a fallacy because that's just what humans are. Copies of each other with the illusion of individuality. That's how you counter an argument? That is barely a cut above Na-na-Na-na Boo-boo
You still fail. The self doesn't refer to anything physical, that's why your definition fails. There is nothing to attribute a self to. You can replace self with automatic in your cases and it achieves the same result. The car started automatically. The mattress inflates automatically. It isn't used to describe a contained unit. It refers to intangible properties beyond the unit (which don't exist). It's a mild form of personification. Remember, "self" doesn't refer to anything physical.Right I agree. It's just a language construct. A word. I thought about it and I think it doesn't ever have to be used in speaking. It can be replaced with other words. Or like I said earlier, One can say She can do it herself, or one can say she can do it. Or she can do it alone etc etc.. Ok, so let's say we are in agreement that the word "self" is unnecessary. It's used in language very heavily but we can get by without it. We could get into a discussion about how the word evolved in language and it's meaning as a reflection of evolutionary psychology upon language. Because a word like self would definitely fall into that category. As opposed to say tree or water. Perhaps. But it still doesn't change that the self is nothing more than a narrative we tell. It doesn't exist unless we constantly dreg up the past to maintain the illusion
Perhaps. But it still doesn't change that the self is nothing more than a narrative we tell. It doesn't exist unless we constantly dreg up the past to maintain the illusionEverything we tell is a narrative. I didn't want to use the word "self"anymore. You'll have to explain what narrative is playing out that maintains an illusion.
The story of an individual. All events that have happened, their behavior, etc. all these separate instances are cobbled together to make the illusion. A name is the same as well
The story of an individual. All events that have happened, their behavior, etc. all these separate instances are cobbled together to make the illusion. A name is the same as wellWhat is the story of an individual? That's all the events that have happened? Why are the events separate? What's the actual reality? Behind the illusion? Understanding that up until this point you have used corporeal, psychological and Earthly constructs to describe phenomena. And I'm assuming you will continue to do so.
The events are all separate instances.
The reality is that it just is. There is no “you”, no person with a name. Just a body, and thoughts.
Also to go with existentialism, why be moral? Why be kind to others? What stops one from going on a killing spree? Why should one care about other humans?
Also to go with existentialism, why be moral? Why be kind to others? What stops one from going on a killing spree? Why should one care about other humans?For exactly the same reasons most theists don't do those things (though far too many do). Our determining factors kick in. There is a REASON that atheists are underrepresented in prisons the world over--except in certaon theocracies. If all that is stopping you from going on killing sprees, I strongly suggest you stay with your religion. You'd be really dangerous if you didn't have it to hold you back. You shouldn't be trusted without the fear of eternal damnation. It's a flaw in your character, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Please, do wrap youself in theism. Nobody knows what you might get up to without it now that you've been hopelessly contaminated by it. You've apparently lost your ability to think for yourself, or never developed it. You need a heavy hand to keep you in line. Lois
Also to go with existentialism, why be moral? Why be kind to others? What stops one from going on a killing spree? Why should one care about other humans?For exactly the same reasons most theists don't do those things (though far too many do). Our determining factors kick in. There is a REASON that atheists are underrepresented in prisons the world over--except in certaon theocracies. If all that is stopping you from going on killing sprees, I strongly suggest you stay with your religion. You'd be really dangerous if you didn't have it to hold you back. You shouldn't be trusted without the fear of eternal damnation. It's a flaw in your character, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Please, do wrap youself in theism. Nobody knows what you might get up to without it now that you've been hopelessly contaminated by it. You've apparently lost your ability to think for yourself, or never developed one. You need a heavy hand to keep you in line. Lois There is no determining factor. There is honestly nothing stopping one from killing other than "we should not do it" which is not a reason. Also it's too late for theism, I'm beyond that.
You have not proven my argument to be wrong about there being no such thing as authenticity.I did it in two ways: first by showing that from the fact that there is no metaphysical self you cannot derive that 'being authentic' has no meaning. I asked you several times how that follows, but you never showed me. Secondly I gave you the correct meaning of 'being authentic' here]:
And you make the same error over an over again: because 'you' can change, you think it cannot be authentic. That is just not true. Being authentic has to do with your desires and aspirations at this moment. 'Being authentic' does not mean that you do not change, e.g. because you are getting older, get new insights, meet new people etc; it also does not mean that there is some real 'you' in the core. It is all about accepting your inner desires, about overcoming your fears to commit yourself to the world.And here]:
Right. There is nothing authentic in your desires and aspirations taken on its own. But somebody is authentic when he acts and speaks according to them, instead of keeping them hidden because of fear or strategical reasons. To be authentic just does not mean 'born from nothing'.
You seem to lack an understanding of what is meant by no self.This is a joke: I have an academic grade in philosophy, and am a practising Zen-Buddhist. (Ever wondered what my disclaimer means ('The light is on, but there is nobody at home')?) As you know, in Buddhism the insight in being no self leads to liberation. At the same time Zen-Buddhism warns for the wrong notion of this insight, because it leads to nihilism. Thanks for proving this point.
I'm saying humans cannot be authentic, because everything they are is an imitation. That's also part of the illusion of the self. You take certain traits to be "you" but they aren't. They are just echoes of what's around you.OK. Then who are you imitating? And why are you powerless not to imitate him? Or are you a unique combination of imitations of others that uniquely defines who you are, even if there is no metaphysical self?
You also make an in correct statement in that being authentic is needed to live a fulfilled life. You don't. People do it every day. Because as I said before, there is no such thing as authenticity. People are just fakes, there's nothing authentic about them. It can also be argued that this world is fake, as well can never know "real" reality, just the imitation of our senses provide.The problem is you are just repeating your own depressed world view, without arguing at all.