View Poll Results: Does the self exist? If so, what is it?

Voters 40. This poll is closed
  • The self exists, it is a metaphysical being such as a "soul."

    8 20.00%
  • The self exists, it is another word for a person - or a locus of sense-making ability.

    19 47.50%
  • The self exists, it is the "one," "god," or everything.

    3 7.50%
  • The self does not exist. It is a linguistic imposition.

    10 25.00%

Thread: The Self

Results 161 to 180 of 181

  1. #161
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Marxschmarx:

    This is actually a good way of putting it: "the mere operation of thought." Well it's as poetic as the rest of the "traditionalists", it may very well be a problem beyond the ken of philosophy, and difficult to communicate.

    Maybe I'm missing the broader point, but...

    Difficult, but I'm not entirely sure it is impossible. I am not a linguist, but it is hard for me to picture than any linguistic description of the world can ever be complete.

    Actually I'm tempted to invoke a something "Goedelian" about language, and especially how it deals with the self, but as I'm neither a professional philosopher nor a linguist I can only conjecture.

    Be that as it may, it may as yet happen that somebody expresses these experiences that are so hard to pin down in words but still strike me as very real. It hasn't happened yet, but, then again, it took longer than it really should have for other essentially conceptual breakthroughs like differential calculus, the class struggle or natural selection to make their way into our language.
    I have to say, I could not for the life of me figure out what you were trying to say, nor yet how it was in any way relevant to what I had earlier posted.

    Tempted , again , madam, but I won't go so far as to do it. Because I can't be bothered to substantiate or pressured to withdraw. So I will comment on the temptation, going no further.
    Then you, sir, are less honourable than I had imagined.
  2. #162
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Posts 2,334
    Rep Power 22

    Default

    The vast majority of my posts are directed against the dialectical mystics here, and have little or nothing to do with rectifying the use of English words.
    How many posts would you say you have made to the latter?
    But, even if they were, there is a world of difference between rectifying philosophical error (which has deep roots in social alientation, and so needs therapy, as Wittgenstein noted, not correction) and advising someone (or being advised) of the use of an English word. The fact that millions of ordinary human beings manage both of the latter every week shows this to be the case.
    This would suggest your non-DM posts are about rectifying philosophical error rather than the use of words like 'conscious' or 'consciousness'.
    Well, you can continue to amuse yourself with your short play, but, as I noted, it has little to do with the points I wish to make.
    Alice: If we are in agreement that the word 'conscious' can refer to 'being awake' or to 'being aware', then this play can end.
    Cheshire Lynx: If we are in agreement that consciousness can refer to wakefulness or awareness, then this play can end.
    Alice: Didn't I just say that ?!
    Well then, it is a technical term (which has yet to be explained), and as such bears no relation to the ordinary use of 'consciousness'.
    If it is yet to be explained, how can we know what category it falls under? It could be a technical term, or a euphemism.
    No, words are either meaningful or meaningless; indicative sentences have a sense or they are senseless.
    Are you speaking technically or figuratively?
    I thought I thought a thought. Now I'm not.
    Philosophers have too much time on their hands, so they spend most of it washing it off.


    Alice: Some people say that taking LSD heightens consciousness. What do you think?
    CL: I think your sentence makes sense and the words are meaningful.
  3. #163
    Join Date Feb 2009
    Posts 157
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    My question:

    If it really doesn't matter how you know the empirical world exists the idea of a statement based on the empirical world becomes nonsense.

    How do you demonstrate that:

    The moon is made of green cheese

    is false?


    Rosa's response:

    Given what we know about the Moon, then this example of yours cannot be about the Moon that we know; so it is a senseless sentence until the correct moon is identified, so that we can determine its truth-value.
    But this is my point: "the moon we know."

    The moon we "know" now is the same moon that was worshipped a couple of thousand years ago but then the perception of the moon was quite different. Nowadays we have a view based on scientific evidence rather than superstition. So it's not at all immaterial how we "know" things.

    "The earth rests on the back of a giant turtle."

    Since we have satelites and telescopes and spacecraft that orbit the earth and no giant turtle has been seen we can assume this statement is false. But in earlier human societies this sentence, based on ordinary language, would have made perfect sense and would not have been at all esoteric. Again, how we know things is very important.

    So are you not taking the current level of human knowledge as your starting point for what is a reasonable empirical proposition or meaningful sentence?

    "Tony Blair" is less than 6 feet tall"

    Yes we can all understand this. But, in order to understand it we have to know that "Tony Blair" is a person and not, for example, the title of a novel. It makes no sense to say, "Wuthering Heights is less than 6 feet tall." We have to know about "tallness" and about a system of measurement in feet and inches.

    I think there is an underlying a-priori assumption in your argument that perception = reality. Otherwise how do your (and Marx's) appeals to ordinary language make sense? I'm not saying this is wrong but if this is the case, how and what we perceive is hardly unimportant.
  4. #164
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Lynx:

    How many posts would you say you have made to the latter?
    No idea.

    If it is yet to be explained, how can we know what category it falls under? It could be a technical term, or a euphemism.
    I am not sure what you mean by 'category'.

    Are you speaking technically or figuratively?
    These are called 'grammatical remarks'.
  5. #165
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Louise:

    The moon we "know" now is the same moon that was worshipped a couple of thousand years ago but then the perception of the moon was quite different. Nowadays we have a view based on scientific evidence rather than superstition. So it's not at all immaterial how we "know" things.
    Depends on your criterion of identity for religious and/or planetary objects.

    Since we have satelites and telescopes and spacecraft that orbit the earth and no giant turtle has been seen we can assume this statement is false. But in earlier human societies this sentence, based on ordinary language, would have made perfect sense and would not have been at all esoteric. Again, how we know things is very important.
    It is not so much how we know things, but what criteria of application is being used.

    So are you not taking the current level of human knowledge as your starting point for what is a reasonable empirical proposition or meaningful sentence?
    I do not think I mentioned knowledge.

    But, in order to understand it we have to know that "Tony Blair" is a person and not, for example, the title of a novel. It makes no sense to say, "Wuthering Heights is less than 6 feet tall." We have to know about "tallness" and about a system of measurement in feet and inches.
    I agree, but is there a deep mystery here?

    I think there is an underlying a-priori assumption in your argument that perception = reality.
    There are no 'underlying' assumptions in what I say, other than that ordinary language is alright as it is (but see below).

    And there are certainly none relating to perception. I can't think what made you suppose there were.

    Moreover, I have already indicated that 'reality' (used philosophically) is an empty term; so I certainly would not use it (except to show that this was the case).

    Otherwise how do your (and Marx's) appeals to ordinary language make sense? I'm not saying this is wrong but if this is the case, how and what we perceive is hardly unimportant.
    I 'know' no such thing; any attempt to undermine ordinary language self-destructs.

    In addition, any attempt to make sense depends on ordinary language; and this can be asserted with some confidence, since it is in ordinary language itself.

    Now, we are moving far from the topic of this thread, so may I suggest that if you want to discuss this further/pick my brains, you begin another thread?
  6. #166
    Join Date Feb 2009
    Posts 157
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    Now, we are moving far from the topic of this thread, so may I suggest that if you want to discuss this further/pick my brains, you begin another thread?
    I think I'll leave it at that but thanks for the suggestion.
  7. #167
    Join Date Oct 2008
    Posts 324
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    DS:
    What's not clear? People use "this mysterious entity (if is in an 'entity') called 'the self'" "to distinguish what they believe is their own body/self from everything else. That's actually the purpose of those words." The relationship is the use of a word ("self") to talk about something (a 'thing' people believe is real and/or separate from everything else); people do it all the time, not just with that word, but with other words like 'freedom' or 'society.' [Now I'm not bringing those words up to begin a long drawn out discussion about them, I was just using them as an example.]
    You will need to give me an ordinanry sentence, used in an ordinary situation, that contains the phrase 'the self' before I am inclined to believe you.
    Before you are inclined to believe me that individual people believe they are separate from everything? Or before you are inclined to believe me that individuals use "self" in their speech? In either case, have you ever read a story? All stories are created on this foundation.
    From dictionary.com:
    Note: self is used in the formation of innumerable compounds, usually of obvious signification, in most of which it denotes either the agent or the object of the action expressed by the word with which it is joined, or the person in behalf of whom it is performed, or the person or thing to, for, or towards whom or which a quality, attribute, or feeling expressed by the following word belongs, is directed, or is exerted, or from which it proceeds; or it denotes the subject of, or object affected by, such action, quality, attribute, feeling, or the like; as, self-abandoning, self-abnegation, self-abhorring, self-absorbed, self-accusing, self-adjusting, self-balanced, self-boasting, self-canceled, self-combating, self-commendation, self-condemned, self-conflict, self-conquest, self-constituted, self-consumed, self-contempt, self-controlled, self-deceiving, self-denying, self-destroyed, self-disclosure, self-display, self-dominion, self-doomed, self-elected, self-evolved, self-exalting, self-excusing, self-exile, self-fed, self-fulfillment, self-governed, self-harming, self-helpless, self-humiliation, self-idolized, self-inflicted, self-improvement, self-instruction, self-invited, self-judging, self-justification, self-loathing, self-loving, self-maintenance, self-mastered, self-nourishment, self-perfect, self-perpetuation, self-pleasing, self-praising, self-preserving, self-questioned, self-relying, self-restraining, self-revelation, self-ruined, self-satisfaction, self-support, self-sustained, self-sustaining, self-tormenting, self-troubling, self-trust, self-tuition, self-upbraiding, self-valuing, self-worshiping, and many others.
    The following are sentences found on dictionary.com:
    For "self":
    "An actor's instrument is the self" (Joan Juliet Buck)
    "He would walk a little first along the southern walls, shed his European self, fully enter this world" (Howard Kaplan)
    "For some of us, the self's natural doubts are given in mesmerizing amplification by way of critics' negative assessments of our writing" (Joyce Carol Oates)
    a living wage for self and family
    "Those who liked their real selves." --Addison
    A man's self may be the worst fellow to converse with in the world. --Pope
    The self, the I, is recognized in every act of intelligence as the subject to which that act belongs. It is I that perceive, I that imagine, I that remember, I that attend, I that compare, I that feel, I that will, I that am conscious. --Sir W. Hamilton
    She was beauty's self. --Thomson
    "Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth." [Alan Watts]

    For "herself":
    She herself wrote the letter.
    She supports herself.
    She gave herself a facial massage. He asked her for a picture of herself.
    She found out that the others were even more nervous than herself.
    After a few weeks of rest, she will be herself again.
    She bought herself a new car. She sculpted a likeness of herself.

    For "himself":
    He cut himself.
    He congratulated himself.
    He himself found the courage.
    But he himself returned from the quarries. --Judges iii. 19
    David hid himself in the field. --1 Sam. xx. 24

    For "ourself":
    It is for ourself that we should strive for greater knowledge.
    We have taken unto ourself such powers as may be necessary.

    For "yourself":
    Don't blame yourself. Did you ever ask yourself why? You can think for yourself.
    The surest way is to do it yourself.
    Did you buy yourself a gift?
    Of which right now ye han yourselve heard. --Chaucer
    Why should you be so cruel to yourself ? --Milton

    For "oneself":
    One often hurts oneself accidentally.
    One makes more friends by being oneself than by putting on airs.
    One can congratulate oneself on one's victories.
    That's not a scientific claim, it was a thought I had from observations of people communicating. I was trying to draw out a discussion on this phenomenon. Hence why I said the following:
    Indeed not; I was being ironic. If it had have been, you'd have the evidence -- which you don't.
    Irony is easily lost in written statements because large parts of communication (body language, voice tone, etc. which would make the irony noticeable) are not present.

    If it looks like a sheep, does it mean its a sheep? Not always. It could be a person wearing a sheep costume. Just because something appears to be one thing, it doesn't mean that it is. What I said was meant to promote discussion on the idea, not the linguistics/semantics/syntax/language use/etc. I saw that you had already addressed that issue, so I was attempting to promote discussion beyond it. I don't actually care about the linguistic side of all of this, I'm interested in how the belief that one is separate from everything shapes that individual's perception of the world and influences their actions -so not philosophy of language, but metaphysics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, logic, and/or perhaps ethics.
    These side issues seem to interest you. Naturally, you are welcome to pursue them (in the science section). But they boor me rigid since they are not philosophical questions, but rather trite psychological puzzles.
    Indeed, that's why I brought them up and don't believe them to be "side issues." I don't see how these are science issues or "trite psychological puzzles", when they have implications in at least 4, possibly 5, branches of philosophy (I italicized them above because I already mentioned them). If that bores you, then don't respond to the post and/or get involved in the discussion.
    I think so far removed from most of society that its hard for me to understand other people any more.

    n idea that is developed and put into
    ction is more important than an idea that exists only as an idea. -Buddha

    The more I detest men individually the more ardent becomes my love for humanity. -The Brothers Karamazov
  8. #168
    Join Date Apr 2009
    Location Florida
    Posts 357
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    I think there is definitely something more than physical to the self because after death the body remains until nature absorbs it
    In this direction it is precisely the Marxist-Leninists who must be the most capable, the most wide-awake, the best organizers in order to become the subjective factor of the leadership of the revolution. In no way should we proceed from the idea that the conditions are not yet ripe for the revolution, or that the revolution cannot break out in the developed capitalist countries, therefore, we have to wait for it to develop in those states or continents in which the oppression, the forms and methods of exploitation are allegedly different from those in the metropolises. The working class and the Marxist-Leninist parties of the metropolises ought to give the peoples of various countries great aid, should assist their revolutionary movements. - Enver Hoxha The Marxist-Leninist Movement and the World Crisis of Capitalism
  9. #169
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    DS:

    Before you are inclined to believe me that individual people believe they are separate from everything? Or before you are inclined to believe me that individuals use "self" in their speech? In either case, have you ever read a story? All stories are created on this foundation.
    Many, including the Dialectical Mystics here, actually believe they are united and/or interconnected with everything in the entire universe.

    But, my scepticism was in fact directed at your comments about 'the self', which is why I posted this comment:

    You will need to give me an ordinanry sentence, used in an ordinary situation, that contains the phrase 'the self' before I am inclined to believe you.
    Then you quoted the dictionary

    Note: self is used in the formation of innumerable compounds, usually of obvious signification, in most of which it denotes either the agent or the object of the action expressed by the word with which it is joined, or the person in behalf of whom it is performed, or the person or thing to, for, or towards whom or which a quality, attribute, or feeling expressed by the following word belongs, is directed, or is exerted, or from which it proceeds; or it denotes the subject of, or object affected by, such action, quality, attribute, feeling, or the like; as, self-abandoning, self-abnegation, self-abhorring, self-absorbed, self-accusing, self-adjusting, self-balanced, self-boasting, self-canceled, self-combating, self-commendation, self-condemned, self-conflict, self-conquest, self-constituted, self-consumed, self-contempt, self-controlled, self-deceiving, self-denying, self-destroyed, self-disclosure, self-display, self-dominion, self-doomed, self-elected, self-evolved, self-exalting, self-excusing, self-exile, self-fed, self-fulfillment, self-governed, self-harming, self-helpless, self-humiliation, self-idolized, self-inflicted, self-improvement, self-instruction, self-invited, self-judging, self-justification, self-loathing, self-loving, self-maintenance, self-mastered, self-nourishment, self-perfect, self-perpetuation, self-pleasing, self-praising, self-preserving, self-questioned, self-relying, self-restraining, self-revelation, self-ruined, self-satisfaction, self-support, self-sustained, self-sustaining, self-tormenting, self-troubling, self-trust, self-tuition, self-upbraiding, self-valuing, self-worshiping, and many others.
    Nothing there that I could see about 'the self', let alone an ordinary sentence, in ordinary circumstances that uses this term.

    But what of this?

    For "self":
    "An actor's instrument is the self" (Joan Juliet Buck)
    "He would walk a little first along the southern walls, shed his European self, fully enter this world" (Howard Kaplan)
    "For some of us, the self's natural doubts are given in mesmerizing amplification by way of critics' negative assessments of our writing" (Joyce Carol Oates)
    a living wage for self and family
    "Those who liked their real selves." --Addison
    A man's self may be the worst fellow to converse with in the world. --Pope
    The self, the I, is recognized in every act of intelligence as the subject to which that act belongs. It is I that perceive, I that imagine, I that remember, I that attend, I that compare, I that feel, I that will, I that am conscious. --Sir W. Hamilton
    She was beauty's self. --Thomson
    "Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth." [Alan Watts]
    Two mentions of 'the self'; one of these is involves a critic trying to summarise or express what an actor is trying to do -- hardly an ordinary use of this term, and we certainly do not know the background philosophical theory that motivated the use of this expression. The other is so crammed with metaphor, it is hard to take it literally. You'll be quoting critics' use of 'god' or 'royal prerogative' next...

    Not a secure basis for drawing sound conclusions about the ordinary use of 'the self', quoting petty-bourgeois authors, philosphers and critics, who, naturally, have bought into this Platonic/Christian/Cartesian myth, as have many comrades here.

    What next?

    For "herself":
    She herself wrote the letter.
    She supports herself.
    She gave herself a facial massage. He asked her for a picture of herself.
    She found out that the others were even more nervous than herself.
    After a few weeks of rest, she will be herself again.
    She bought herself a new car. She sculpted a likeness of herself.

    For "himself":
    He cut himself.
    He congratulated himself.
    He himself found the courage.
    But he himself returned from the quarries. --Judges iii. 19
    David hid himself in the field. --1 Sam. xx. 24

    For "ourself":
    It is for ourself that we should strive for greater knowledge.
    We have taken unto ourself such powers as may be necessary.

    For "yourself":
    Don't blame yourself. Did you ever ask yourself “why”? You can think for yourself.
    The surest way is to do it yourself.
    Did you buy yourself a gift?
    Of which right now ye han yourselve heard. --Chaucer
    Why should you be so cruel to yourself ? --Milton

    For "oneself":
    One often hurts oneself accidentally.
    One makes more friends by being oneself than by putting on airs.
    One can congratulate oneself on one's victories.
    A total waste of space since I have already said that these are legitimate ordinary uses of 'self'.

    Irony is easily lost in written statements because large parts of communication (body language, voice tone, etc. which would make the irony noticeable) are not present.
    Not necessarily so; some of the greatest literary examples of irony were manifestly in written form. In this instance, what was lacking in the receiver (viz: you) was the required sensitivity.

    Indeed, that's why I brought them up and don't believe them to be "side issues." I don't see how these are science issues or "trite psychological puzzles", when they have implications in at least 4, possibly 5, branches of philosophy (I italicized them above because I already mentioned them). If that bores you, then don't respond to the post and/or get involved in the discussion.
    I am sorry, but I couldn't locate these alleged "4...[or] 5 branches of philosophy".

    Perhaps you were being ironic...
  10. #170
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Hoxhaist:

    I think there is definitely something more than physical to the self because after death the body remains until nature absorbs it
    As I surmised, you are a dualist, not a materialist.

    Take my advice: don't admit that embarrassing fact to your fellow Hoxha worhippers...
  11. #171
    Join Date Mar 2003
    Location Sol system
    Posts 12,311
    Organisation
    Deniers of Messiahs
    Rep Power 137

    Default

    We really do not need this ruling-class rubbish dumping here. The rules of the forum ban preaching, so please desist. If you want to spout more of this mytsical crap, naff off to OI, and waste some space there.
    Says the person who doesn't think that consciousness is a process of the brain.

    Using your car analogy from earlier, but in a different way:

    Car = Body
    Wheels = Brain
    Car moving = Consciousness

    A primary part of a car's/body's function is to move/be conscious. Wheels/brains take a direct part in this process. If the wheels/brains are removed or otherwise interfered with, the process of moving/being conscious is thus interfered with also.

    Basically, we're complex biological machinery, and consciousness is a continuous function/ongoing process involved in the larger examples to different degrees.
    The Human Progress Group

    Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
    Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
    Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
    The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky


    Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
  12. #172
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Noxion:

    Says the person who doesn't think that consciousness is a process of the brain.
    Unfortunately for you this sentence lacks a sense, since it contains an empty word, namely 'consciousness' -- either that, or this word is being used in a technical sense, and as such is unrelated to what we mean by 'consciousness' when we speak about it in everyday life.

    And, Noxy baby, you are mistaken; I have never denied this, since the denial of non-sense is also non-sensical. What I have said is in fact contained in the paragraph above.

    Perhaps you weren't conscious of this?

    Using your car analogy from earlier, but in a different way:

    Car = Body
    Wheels = Brain
    Car moving = Consciousness

    A primary part of a car's/body's function is to move/be conscious. Wheels/brains take a direct part in this process. If the wheels/brains are removed or otherwise interfered with, the process of moving/being conscious is thus interfered with also.
    Alas, once more, your weak attempt to construct an argument using sophomoric logic also fails.

    For example,

    Car moving = Consciousness
    1) 'Car moving' is a verb phrase, whereas 'consciousness' is an abstract noun. In that case, there is no way they can be equated.

    2) Once again, this 'equation' of yours contains an empty word (namely 'consciousness'), which renders it less than useless.

    Either that, or you are once again using this word in a new, and as yet unexplained sense.

    We wait with bated breath for enlightenment (and have been since this theory was dreamt up by the ancient Greeks/Christians).

    Basically, we're complex biological machinery, and consciousness is a continuous function/ongoing process involved in the larger examples to different degrees.
    Nice rhetorical flourish, alas ruined by that empty word again.

    So, you can return to cleaning test tubes now...
  13. #173
    Join Date Mar 2003
    Location Sol system
    Posts 12,311
    Organisation
    Deniers of Messiahs
    Rep Power 137

    Default

    1) 'Car moving' is a verb phrase, whereas 'consciousness' is an abstract noun. In that case, there is no way they can be equated.
    Irrelevant semantics. They're both processes.

    2) Once again, this 'equation' of yours contains an empty word (namely 'consciousness'), which renders it less than useless.

    Either that, or you are once again using this word in a new, and as yet unexplained sense.
    No actually, "consciousness" has a specific meaning. Which I'm using.

    We wait with bated breath for enlightenment (and have been since this theory was dreamt up by the ancient Greeks/Christians).
    What theory? All I'm saying is that consciousness is a process generated by a specific part of the human body, namely the brain. That seems to tally with what we actually know about the human body.

    Nice rhetorical flourish, alas ruined by that empty word again.

    So, you can return to cleaning test tubes now...
    Why don't you focus on what's being said, rather than picking at my choice of words like some persnickety English teacher?
    The Human Progress Group

    Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
    Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
    Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
    The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky


    Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
  14. #174
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Noxion:

    Irrelevant semantics. They're both processes.
    Irrelevant excuse for sloppy thought.

    No actually, "consciousness" has a specific meaning. Which I'm using.
    Except you can't tell us what it is.

    What theory? All I'm saying is that consciousness is a process generated by a specific part of the human body, namely the brain. That seems to tally with what we actually know about the human body.
    You clearly haven't read this thread.

    Why don't you focus on what's being said, rather than picking at my choice of words like some persnickety English teacher?
    It's not my fault if you can't write clearly.
  15. #175
    Join Date Apr 2009
    Location Florida
    Posts 357
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    Hoxhaist:



    As I surmised, you are a dualist, not a materialist.

    Take my advice: don't admit that embarrassing fact to your fellow Hoxha worhippers...
    I dont think there is a real answer to what the self is, only speculation. I dont think our mind can ever really completely understand how it works totally because to do that it would need an objective point of reference that the mind cant get. (Im not a philosopher...)
    In this direction it is precisely the Marxist-Leninists who must be the most capable, the most wide-awake, the best organizers in order to become the subjective factor of the leadership of the revolution. In no way should we proceed from the idea that the conditions are not yet ripe for the revolution, or that the revolution cannot break out in the developed capitalist countries, therefore, we have to wait for it to develop in those states or continents in which the oppression, the forms and methods of exploitation are allegedly different from those in the metropolises. The working class and the Marxist-Leninist parties of the metropolises ought to give the peoples of various countries great aid, should assist their revolutionary movements. - Enver Hoxha The Marxist-Leninist Movement and the World Crisis of Capitalism
  16. #176
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Hoxhaist:

    I dont think there is a real answer to what the self is, only speculation. I dont think our mind can ever really completely understand how it works totally because to do that it would need an objective point of reference that the mind cant get. (Im not a philosopher...)
    Well, as I have been arguing throughout this thread, the phrase 'the self' is devoid of meaning, so it is not a question of whether we can understand what it is any more than it is a question how we can understand the Adhedral triangle.

    [The 'Adhedral triangle' is a fictional name (from some novel or other I once read), and does not name a triangle of any sort.]
  17. #177
    Join Date Oct 2008
    Posts 324
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    DS:
    But, my scepticism was in fact directed at your comments about 'the self', which is why I posted this comment:
    You will need to give me an ordinanry sentence, used in an ordinary situation, that contains the phrase 'the self' before I am inclined to believe you.
    I believe you are referring to my comment (this is where your skepticism is directed?):
    "The Self" --> the belief one is separate from everything ('else')
    Of which you said:
    DS:
    1) This is a re-definition, and so can have no bearing on our ordinary use of words like 'herself', 'oneself', 'yourself'.
    I responded with:
    to your 1): What I said is true and applicable to the ordinary use of the words you brought up ('herself', 'oneself', 'yourself') because people use those words to distinguish what they believe is their own body/self from everything else. That's actually the purpose of those words. (...)
    I think it is philosophically interesting that on the whole language users believe in "I/the self" and that it exists (in addition, "others/you/they")
    And so you asked for a sentence that uses "self" in ordinary language. You first brought into the discussion, "herself," "oneself," "yourself" etc. Those words are used to distinguish between peoples (usually previously mentioned, because they're reflexive pronouns). Those uses follow my initial claim about being separate. But when I gave you examples of the ordinary uses of these words, you said:
    What next?

    A total waste of space since I have already said that these are legitimate ordinary uses of 'self'.
    If you knew they were legitimate, why ask for them? I also included sentences using just "self." Which you said,
    But what of this?

    Two mentions of 'the self'; one of these is involves a critic trying to summarise or express what an actor is trying to do -- hardly an ordinary use of this term, and we certainly do not know the background philosophical theory that motivated the use of this expression. The other is so crammed with metaphor, it is hard to take it literally. You'll be quoting critics' use of 'god' or 'royal prerogative' next...

    Not a secure basis for drawing sound conclusions about the ordinary use of 'the self', quoting petty-bourgeois authors, philosphers and critics, who, naturally, have bought into this Platonic/Christian/Cartesian myth, as have many comrades here.
    I believe there were 9 sentences and the first 8 mentioned the "self" (the last one said "yourself"). If you had taken into account when I said, "In either case, have you ever read a story? All stories are created on this foundation," you wouldn't be making the claim that authors and artists are not part of the ordinary use.
    From all of this, all I can conclude is that I don't know what you mean by "ordinary." So if you can give me an example of an "ordinary sentence," or define what you mean by "ordinary sentence" I can attempt to discuss this further.

    Then you quoted the dictionary

    Nothing there that I could see about 'the self', let alone an ordinary sentence, in ordinary circumstances that uses this term.
    Yea, I just thought it was interesting that there were so many uses of "self."

    Not necessarily so; some of the greatest literary examples of irony were manifestly in written form. In this instance, what was lacking in the receiver (viz: you) was the required sensitivity.
    That's interesting, what examples did you have mind when you wrote this? Its hard to be "sensitive" to irony when I was trying to take everything you said at face value so as not to be disrespectful or misunderstand what you were saying. If you jump back and forth, it becomes difficult to know when you are saying something you actually mean.

    I am sorry, but I couldn't locate these alleged "4...[or] 5 branches of philosophy".

    Perhaps you were being ironic...
    I was not being ironic. Like I said, I italicized them, they were at the bottom of the quote; and were as follows: "metaphysics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, logic, and/or perhaps ethics."
    I think so far removed from most of society that its hard for me to understand other people any more.

    n idea that is developed and put into
    ction is more important than an idea that exists only as an idea. -Buddha

    The more I detest men individually the more ardent becomes my love for humanity. -The Brothers Karamazov
  18. #178
    Join Date Apr 2009
    Location Florida
    Posts 357
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    Hoxhaist:



    Well, as I have been arguing throughout this thread, the phrase 'the self' is devoid of meaning, so it is not a question of whether we can understand what it is any more than it is a question how we can understand the Adhedral triangle.

    [The 'Adhedral triangle' is a fictional name (from some novel or other I once read), and does not name a triangle of any sort.]
    Then I think we agree!
    In this direction it is precisely the Marxist-Leninists who must be the most capable, the most wide-awake, the best organizers in order to become the subjective factor of the leadership of the revolution. In no way should we proceed from the idea that the conditions are not yet ripe for the revolution, or that the revolution cannot break out in the developed capitalist countries, therefore, we have to wait for it to develop in those states or continents in which the oppression, the forms and methods of exploitation are allegedly different from those in the metropolises. The working class and the Marxist-Leninist parties of the metropolises ought to give the peoples of various countries great aid, should assist their revolutionary movements. - Enver Hoxha The Marxist-Leninist Movement and the World Crisis of Capitalism
  19. #179
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    DS:

    And so you asked for a sentence that uses "self" in ordinary language. You first brought into the discussion, "herself," "oneself," "yourself" etc. Those words are used to distinguish between peoples (usually previously mentioned, because they're reflexive pronouns). Those uses follow my initial claim about being separate. But when I gave you examples of the ordinary uses of these words, you said:
    Not so; in fact I said this:

    You will need to give me an ordinary sentence, used in an ordinary situation, that contains the phrase 'the self' before I am inclined to believe you.
    Notice the definite article.

    If you knew they were legitimate, why ask for them?
    I didn't. Re-read what I actually said, not what you would like me to have said.

    I believe there were 9 sentences and the first 8 mentioned the "self" (the last one said "yourself"). If you had taken into account when I said, "In either case, have you ever read a story? All stories are created on this foundation," you wouldn't be making the claim that authors and artists are not part of the ordinary use.
    From all of this, all I can conclude is that I don't know what you mean by "ordinary." So if you can give me an example of an "ordinary sentence," or define what you mean by "ordinary sentence" I can attempt to discuss this further.
    Once more, all wasted effort.

    By 'ordinary sentence', I mean one that we are inclined to use in everyday life.

    In fact, you yourself have given several examples of these, but unfortunately not of the required sort, since you seem to think the definite article can be ignored.

    That's interesting, what examples did you have mind when you wrote this? Its hard to be "sensitive" to irony when I was trying to take everything you said at face value so as not to be disrespectful or misunderstand what you were saying. If you jump back and forth, it becomes difficult to know when you are saying something you actually mean.
    Perhaps we can begin a new thread on this. Apologies if I misled you.

    Until then, maybe this will help:

    http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/....cgi?id=dv2-70

    Like I said, I italicized them, they were at the bottom of the quote; and were as follows: "metaphysics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, logic, and/or perhaps ethics."
    Apologies once more; I should read your posts with more care than you read mine.
  20. #180
    fka AugustWest Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Aug 2005
    Posts 6,021
    Organisation
    IWW
    Rep Power 99

    Default

    Rosa, does not the fourth option in the poll satisfy your position on this question?

    - August
    If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
    - Karl Marx

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts