On disembodied self
Recently when I was thinking about the nature of my own existence, I felt that I might have more than just 1 self.
I was cutting grass in the back garden this afternoon. Now it is the night, and I am sitting in my room thinking about my existence cutting the grass. It is in my memory that I went to the shed, opened the lock of the shed door, and went into the shed looking for the lawn mower.
The image of me doing that was very clear, and vivid, because it was only a few hours ago.
But somehow I didn't feel that this afternoon doing all the garden work had any significance to me sitting on my chair tonight thinking and remembering about the event.
It was definitely "I" who is in my memory but the "I" has already gone by in time, the present, and it was just the mental images in the memory only. I sat on my chair and couldn't talk, meet or help each other or advise not to go over any cat poops on the grass with the mower to "I" in the garden. It was "I" in the garden who was just the same as a 3rd party other person, that I have nothing to do with. My memory was only the basis of my belief that "I" in the garden is the same as "I" in the chair. Clearly the "I" in the garden is not the same "I" in the chair.
I concluded that "I" in the garden is an alienated "I" from "I" in my chair at the present moment.
It was clear that only meaningful "I" in the real world for me is "I" now at this particular present time, whom I can talk, see, hear, move, think, feel, smell, touch and decide. All the "I"s in the past was continuously becoming objective "I", who is also constantly being alienated / disembodied from me. All my mental and perceptual activities must be presupposed with "I" on temporal now, and it is the meaningful "I" to me as the real "I". The "I" in the garden was just the images and movements in the memory which lacks the temporal NOW, and live and phenomenal consciousness.
But then I cannot deny the fact the "I" in the garden was not the same "I" in the chair now, because from my memory it was vividly and unmistakably identical "I". So depending on which "I" I recall from the past memories, imagine with the future situations and plans, they were the same "I"s as "I" at present, but then it is not the same "I" as the "I" at the present. Moreover, I am undecided to conclude which "I" is the real "I", and how many "I"s are in existence in the real world. Because they are all from the real world, but in different times, and sometimes in same time when memories, imagination and thoughts are working together concurrently.
What is your idea of self for you? Is it your physical body, mind? or the combination of both?
Which one do you regard as your true self, and why? How many self / selves do you have?
I was cutting grass in the back garden this afternoon. Now it is the night, and I am sitting in my room thinking about my existence cutting the grass. It is in my memory that I went to the shed, opened the lock of the shed door, and went into the shed looking for the lawn mower.
The image of me doing that was very clear, and vivid, because it was only a few hours ago.
But somehow I didn't feel that this afternoon doing all the garden work had any significance to me sitting on my chair tonight thinking and remembering about the event.
It was definitely "I" who is in my memory but the "I" has already gone by in time, the present, and it was just the mental images in the memory only. I sat on my chair and couldn't talk, meet or help each other or advise not to go over any cat poops on the grass with the mower to "I" in the garden. It was "I" in the garden who was just the same as a 3rd party other person, that I have nothing to do with. My memory was only the basis of my belief that "I" in the garden is the same as "I" in the chair. Clearly the "I" in the garden is not the same "I" in the chair.
I concluded that "I" in the garden is an alienated "I" from "I" in my chair at the present moment.
It was clear that only meaningful "I" in the real world for me is "I" now at this particular present time, whom I can talk, see, hear, move, think, feel, smell, touch and decide. All the "I"s in the past was continuously becoming objective "I", who is also constantly being alienated / disembodied from me. All my mental and perceptual activities must be presupposed with "I" on temporal now, and it is the meaningful "I" to me as the real "I". The "I" in the garden was just the images and movements in the memory which lacks the temporal NOW, and live and phenomenal consciousness.
But then I cannot deny the fact the "I" in the garden was not the same "I" in the chair now, because from my memory it was vividly and unmistakably identical "I". So depending on which "I" I recall from the past memories, imagine with the future situations and plans, they were the same "I"s as "I" at present, but then it is not the same "I" as the "I" at the present. Moreover, I am undecided to conclude which "I" is the real "I", and how many "I"s are in existence in the real world. Because they are all from the real world, but in different times, and sometimes in same time when memories, imagination and thoughts are working together concurrently.
What is your idea of self for you? Is it your physical body, mind? or the combination of both?
Which one do you regard as your true self, and why? How many self / selves do you have?
Comments (44)
...(fact): the I in the garden then was not the same I in the chair now;
...cannot deny (the fact): the I in the garden is not the same I in the chair;
...from memory they are identical.
These seem to contradict each other.
One way to look: Memory is wrong. The “I” in the shed then was thinking subject then; the “I” in the chair now is thinking subject now, but the thinking “I” then is thought object now. “I” as subject is that which is conscious of itself, and no object is ever conscious of itself. Therefore, the “I” as object not the same “I” as subject.
Another way: The thinking “I” cannot think a thinking “I”. The thinking “I” cannot think itself. A subject cannot think a subject; a subject can only think an object.
I’m of the mind there is only one self. I can’t even begin to imagine what it would be like with more than one me, tromping all around in there. I mean......who would be the boss?
Would it not then suggest that there are different "I"s for one's self identity? Even if one does not conceive one's idea of self, that does not mean that it is non-existent.
So, could we not then say that one can have numerous disembodied self identities? Must you not indeed decide which you are the real you? :)
Quoting Mww
In Kant, is "Ich denke" not a presupposed condition for all intuition and judgment? So, one does not have to try to think the "thinking I". The fact that you intuit your own self proves that it is perceiving the thinking you, and it is the transcendental a priori condition in making judgments and intuitions.
The idea of self for me depends a lot of what Descartes developed as “cogito ergo sum”. If I think and I am able to reasoning, myself exists. That’s what I consider a true self. Perhaps the exterior or my environment cheats on my but at least I don’t have a doubt about my existence.
I think it is a very good question asking how many selves can be. It depends a lot of the people we interact with. Each person has different “selves” in other people’s minds. The word person meant in Ancient Greek “mask”. I think this statement says it all. According to how we interact with others, they would have a better or worse self of me as a person.
To be honest with you, I don’t know if I have a true self... and if I have so, I want to keep with me. This is a good treasure.
Technically, in Kant, “I think” accompanies representations in intuition, but “I am” accompanies judgements. The former is the synthetical unity of self-consciousness, while the latter is the transcendental unity of apperception, so-called. The former is itself an intuition, representing the determinable in me, the latter is merely a thought, representing the determining in me.
In effect, “I” represents the form of, or is the presupposed condition for, both intuitions and judgements. “I” represents the totality in consciousness, or, the transcendental ego, by which it is possible, “that all my representations are united, or can be united, in one consciousness, otherwise I must have as many and varied a self as there are representations....”
Bring your own salt; most folks require it by the truckload.
I am only aware of one self and it appears to be integrated. I have no idea what a 'true self' might be - does this assume a false self? I am aware of experiences and actions and choices and most of these seem to come from the same place which I call me. If it is an illusion - so be it. It doesn't concern me since I have no known way (or desire) to explore this.
It sounds like very much Cartesian self to me, and quite rightly so. Because before Descartes, philosophical topics had been usually on about the universe, nature, ethics and perception in general. It was Descartes who turned the attention to "I" for basing the whole undoubtable criteria for finding any further truths. Whether one agrees with him or not, Descartes is the monumental philosopher in the history.
Quoting javi2541997
I feel that I also have more than one selfs hanging around somewhere either in my consciousness or in my memories and imaginations, but a true self for me is a "doubting self" :D
According to Kant, my conscious is not able to catch my self. But I guess what he meant was that it is already presupposed as logical "I", rather than existential "I".
Great post !! :pray: :up: Yeah, I thought about it again, and it sounded somewhat Kantian (existential and logical "I"s) and also somewhat Heideggerian ( being and time). :) = Kandeggerian.
I reread your previous post a few times, and saw what you were meaning on the distinction between the 2 "I"s - I as an object and I as subject. They are not the same. One is existential and the other is logical which must not be predicated.
Quoting Mww
This answers the question then why self can be just one instead many I suppose.
Quoting Mww
It is an essential ingredient, and I always use the sea salt. :D
Usually that is what I think too, but in my dreams, I appear as some 3rd party person, whom I have no knowledge or control of. He I wonders around in the field sometimes, or wines and dines with people I never met, or sometimes people I know. I thought there might be another self of me hiding somewhere while I am awake waiting for me to fall asleep, appearing in the dreams.
The same is the case in my imaginations and intuitions and sometime in memories. I mean the "I" on Sunday in the garden, is definitely me who cut the grass, but I can no longer control him I. I am in my chair reflecting the I on the Sunday, and it is all vivid and clear memory of I working away in the garden, but the I in the garden on Sunday is a disembodied I from I now in the chair reflecting on him I, because I now can no longer control or talk to him I on last Sunday afternoon. :)
To answer the rest of your post - I mean, obviously, I, like everyone, has a strong sense of who I am, with all of the associated memories and baggage and my particular life story. But at the same time, I have a sense that the self, the seat of consciousness, is a mystery, being out of the field, always at the edge or underneath experience but never in the picture. There’s a beautiful passage in the Upani?ads about ‘the unknown knower’ which touches on that.
I think people want to nail down the self, as if it something definite, but it is precisely its unknowability which is important. It is the mystery at the middle of everything.
It does sound like the opening of a 20th century novel. :razz:
I can say to the extent that I understand your point, I have not had this experience.
Wish I could write novels :D
Google that.
Philosophy can take ones to some land of weirdness at times away from the real world. I call it philosophical dreams :D
This book is so good :up: I read it when I was 18 years old and changed my life for good. What a good writer Herman Hesse was.
I haven’t revisited it since then neither! Herman Hesse was a big influence when I started in philosophy as beginner in my school.
I remember my teacher recommended me “Siddartha” too but I don’t read it yet... probably I am ready to read a Herman Hesse’s book again :up:
I'm the one who can truthfully say 'It's mine' when someone asks 'Whose is this debit card I just found at the checkout?' That is, the self exists essentially in relationship to others, a life and meaningful actions. If I hesitate because I'm wondering 'But is that my true self?' then I will no longer be able to go shopping. I will have to steal my groceries and that will lead to other kinds of self-identification, where asking who is my true self will be equally impertinent and may be taken as contemptuous of the court. Everyone has a mystical philosophical self until they get a punch in the face and then they know who they really are.
I read most Herman Hesse in my late teens. Probably during my initial exploration of Jung, Joseph Campbell, Ouspensky, Krishnamurti, Alan Watts, you name it. I came to this stuff looking for an alternative to the suffocating strictures of mainstream culture. Demian resonated a great deal.
I tend to agree with the late Australian critic Clive James - there ought to be prestigious literary award going for the person who doesn't write a novel.
Bingo. Which is all Descartes meant to say: “therefore I am” is an analytic judgement given from, and thus is a predicate for, “I think”, but “I am”, in and of itself, is always and only unconditioned. And of course, the unconditioned has no predication.
“I am” is very far from “I” am that which exists as thinking subject.
I can see the point too. Many great authors have never received prestigious literary awards.
“Malone dies” is a magnificent play of theater :100: :flower:
About Camus, I have in my room “The Plague” waiting for been read by my lazy ass!
Absolutely not, in Kantian metaphysics, at least. The thing-in-itself is a real, physical, space/time thing, says so right there in the name. The logical “I” can never be found in space, so......
And no....noumena are not things-in-themselves. Never were. Overlook those instances where Kant seems to contradict himself.....think: contextual oversight....at least with respect to that text where he says with authority, how he wants noumena to be conceived in conjunction with the understanding, from which all conceptions arise.
"The Plague" will remind you the Pandemic we have had. A great work of Camus.
Any examples of them? I used to understand The "Thing-in-Itself" was impossible for us to know or perceive with out sensical perception. Could we then say, they do exist? How can we even talking about things that we don't perceive or know?
But
Quoting 180 Proof
Always look on the bright side of life, eh?
Yeah......every single thing there ever was or ever will be. All things are external to us, so exists in its own right. Exists as itself. Exists in-itself.
Quoting Corvus
True enough, but that doesn’t take anything away from the existence of it as such. It should be obvious the thing that affects the senses is not the thing of experience. Transitions into it, but is not it. The thing of perception is a real physical object out there, the thing of experience is a mental copy of it, a representation, in here. It is impossible that the totality of the thing of perception registers on the system, for such would necessarily be a simple thing, and there are no simple things in Nature**. In fact, even if it does register in concreto, it is quite clear the thing does not so register in summa, and if it doesn’t, it is impossible to know those parts, which leaves us with just logical inference.
So, from the human perspective.....the only one we care about....that which is represented in us, a function of sensibility, and subsequently cognized, a function of understanding, constitutes the reality of the thing for us; that part of the thing not represented hence not cognizable, constitutes merely the possible reality of the thing. Then, carrying the logic to its end, that which is not represented at all, is neither perceived nor cognized in our-selves, is the thing in it-self. All of it being out there, none of it being in here. And if all of it is out there and none in here, what of it is there for us to know?
(** transcendental refutation of Leibnitzian monadology)
————-
Quoting Corvus
That which we don’t perceive or know we can still talk about logically. That which is impossible to perceive or know, should not be talked about at all, which means we should have no business with it. But we do sometimes indulge in that business, because reason left alone has no innate self-control, that being acquired from experience alone.
Are we good?
I will embark on CPR reading soon, and your posts are going to be good foundation for the read. :up:
Good one downloadable from Gutenburg. Searchable, jumpable and C&P enabled.
Guyer/Wood, C&P enabled, non-searchable, scroll only, but with good translator intro: http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf
Have fun.
BRAVO!!!! No substitute for the book, I must say.
Norman Kemp Smith was the standard translation from 1929, until the Guyer/Wood came along. Typically, one accuses the other of mis-translating a notoriously difficult language in the first place, and a extremely difficult text in the second.
I was just telling somebody the other day about my excellent quality 1929 first edition NKS.
Dunno about that, but I was told this one has special provenance, what with the ex libris Cambridge University bookplate.....which might simply indicate it was stolen......and antiquarian bookseller’s condition report.
It is great that I can have both NKS and the Guyer/Wood copy(file from the link) of CPR, and take turns in the reading when one version is not clear to me, I can always go to the other version.