tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8832236349540926420.post4022352372315669107..comments2023-06-03T07:31:58.418-05:00Comments on The Critically Pissed: Do you know you are? (by anon)Critically Pissedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08616961824286610531noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8832236349540926420.post-67104195285609677032012-07-12T15:35:59.428-05:002012-07-12T15:35:59.428-05:00I am not II am not IAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8832236349540926420.post-27568239810392225652012-07-10T15:33:00.135-05:002012-07-10T15:33:00.135-05:00I am II am IAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8832236349540926420.post-78608541863269400422012-07-08T20:53:50.367-05:002012-07-08T20:53:50.367-05:00From what you are saying, I think you could agree ...From what you are saying, I think you could agree to this: to say that something is something is not to say that it must BE in some metaphysically absolute sense. Thus, to apply that, one can say the self is something without being committed to a metaphysical self or metaphysical essences. That is what I mean in my OP as in my comments.<br /><br />I don't actually think that you and I are saying drastically different things, except that I use more conservative language (not in the political sense) and you use more radical language.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8832236349540926420.post-51914731920541222932012-07-08T18:33:55.471-05:002012-07-08T18:33:55.471-05:00And, a practical construction is fine with me... l...And, a practical construction is fine with me... like I said, I liked your practical approach. But it's just not absolute.. it doesn't really exist... you talk about it and say, "that's what the self is" but regardless of that being said, things would still be the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8832236349540926420.post-22343656006415703722012-07-08T18:11:15.724-05:002012-07-08T18:11:15.724-05:00I don't think I'm just playing with semant...I don't think I'm just playing with semantics here. And it's always a possibility that I'm just bonkers.. <br />But really, I understand that if we are to talk about ourselves or others, that we have to think of those selves as "things" (or "who"s like you said). However, that's just it. We must *THINK* of the self as a "thing" or a "who", in which case, we're only thinking of it. I'm not out to destroy ideas of the self; I'm saying it only exists as far as our language will let it exist, as far as we can make it exist <i>idealogically</i>, because it exists as we think it exists (unless you are willing to say it is all material). The non-material self is an <i>absract</i> thing, and so it is abstracted from reality, and exists only in our minds. <br />Basically, as I was saying, to talk about "us" and "you" and "me", is just to refer to the object (our bodies) from which observable phenomena come from. <br />It is not senseless or stupid to talk about "I" or "us" without believing that the "self" is a thing, because the "I" and "you" just refers to physical individual bodies. <br />For instance, when I'm talking to my cat, I might say, "you are a bad kitty", but then do I have to assume my cat also has a self, the way it is defined in the post, just because I say, "you" in the sentence?<br />I don't want to destroy the "self"... I just don't think there ever was a true one to begin with... Nietzsche said, "we can destroy only as creators", and even if he wasn't talking necessarily about the "self", I still think it applies. <br />Anyway, the "self" can be what a person means, because like I said before, the "self" is an abstract concept, which entails that it is created in our minds, or just "thought of", in the first place, and like the original post says, it is more than just the material aspect of a person. But what gave us the "self" in language via the use of "I", "you" and so on, is just the fact that we are material beings! Just because I have a brain and a body, and can utter noises that seem to express thoughts coherently, doesn't mean that I have a "self". <br />The way the original post talks about the "self" and who a person is, is not really the same as what you are trying to say here on this thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8832236349540926420.post-88108822502184251472012-07-06T15:05:07.798-05:002012-07-06T15:05:07.798-05:00I think you're either playing with semantics o...I think you're either playing with semantics or you're just bonkers. Of course we need to think of the self as a "thing" (or better to say, a "who") that has *some* measure of stability or else this conversation between *us* is stupid. Stupid and futile. But I believe that I am writing to the *same* person whom I've been responding to before in this thread. And you must assume the likewise. I'm with you on getting rid of the notion of the self as some kind of essence, but you're going too far in deconstruction land, a land that Nietzsche would have been wary of too. Nietzsche still had a sense of self, though he hated all talk of essences.<br /><br />So, in terms of semantics, I think you misinterpret when I say that "I am a function of my commitments." I am not pointing to an essence, but the practical construction of what constitutes our selves.<br /><br />But I certainly do not want to say what you say. You say it is more accurate to say, "the 'self' is the personal commitments an individual has" would be less accurate than "the 'self' STANDS FOR or MEANS or REFERENCES the personal commitments an individual has." When you put in words such as "means" you are putting in a verb that connotes intentionality. Someone has to mean something. Thus, you're being very confusing because the self cannot be what a person means, because you are already presupposing a person by which can mean something. You presuppose the self in your definition of the self.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8832236349540926420.post-49859392457440823902012-07-06T08:44:09.230-05:002012-07-06T08:44:09.230-05:00Well, language allows individuals to use words lik...Well, language allows individuals to use words like "I" and "you" in order to refer to where certain statements, thoughts, actions, etc. are coming from. A lot of times, we need to discern which individual is speaking, which individual is expressing a particular idea, and so on and so forth. Just becuase we use "I" and "you" in language as though "I" and "you" are things that truly exist does not necessarily imply that "I" and "you" even really DO exist as relatively stable things. No one has to assume so, and that is the point because "I" and "you" are just parts of language that function to attribute actions, thoughts, etc. to a particular individual at a particular place in space and time. But just because particular individuals exist at particular points in space and time at any given moment, does not mean that there is anything such as a "self" that actually exists in reality and can be defined. <br />So when one says, "I", one is not talking about one's "self" as though "I" literally refers to a "self", because what "I" really does is specifies the source of an idea, action, word, etc. "I eat" and "I like cats" does not mean that "I" is actually a real "self" that eats and likes cats. It just specifies the individual source from which the action of eating and liking cats is coming from. <br /><br />Next... by saying "maybe everything just IS what it MEANS", I'm saying maybe nothing truly IS one thing or the other, maybe something that we say "IS" x, y, or z, is only x, y, or z in so far as it MEANS x, y, or z. For example, "the 'self' is the personal commitments an individual has" would be less accurate than "the 'self' STANDS FOR or MEANS or REFERENCES the personal commitments an individual has". The latter way shows that "self", although it's the subject of the sentence performing the action, is NOT truly a thing at all, and it's just a stand-in to represent something else (which is also abstractly defined). So from your perspective, the self means x, y, and z. From another perspective, the self could mean the continuum of one's consciousness, or it could mean a bunch of other things. Thus, the self is not really stable at all, and does not exist in reality, because it is a linguistic device that may refer to a number of things, and to attempt to define it as anything stable, concrete, or REAL is just futile.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8832236349540926420.post-80295608166321915082012-07-05T20:57:41.437-05:002012-07-05T20:57:41.437-05:00You say, "I feel like the self is whatever yo...You say, "I feel like the self is whatever you want it to be." If the self is not stable at all or is just a function of fancy, then how can you use such words as "I" or "you" as they assume something relatively stable?<br /><br />"Maybe everything just IS what it MEANS"? What do YOU MEAN?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8832236349540926420.post-77141454405680632282012-07-05T19:30:24.218-05:002012-07-05T19:30:24.218-05:00Why do you think there is even such a thing as a s...Why do you think there is even such a thing as a self in the first place?<br />Nietzche said that language just gives us the illusion of there being a self that really exists. <br />However... I suppose I like your practical approach here. <br />You want to define the self... but in all honesty, I feel like the self is whatever you want it to be...like whatever you want it to function as. Whatever you want it to mean. <br />I guess what I'm saying is that you're talking about what the self means, rather than what it actually is... then again... maybe everything just IS what it MEANS. <br />I don't know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com