Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What is the self of a person, does it exist, and if so, then how?

Rate this topic


Questioner

Recommended Posts

I do not think that you can legitimately make that claim as yet since you have indicated you don't even understand what those terms mean or to what they refer. How do YOU define the 'self' that you do not believe inherently exists? When you say existent do you mean a physical / material existent, or do you mean something that exists conceptually?

I would prefer not to define "self" for you, but rather have you or Objectivism or Rand define it for me (note - this has been done in post #5 & 10, Rand identified the self as the "judge"/"intellect" and based on these terms and her definitions I suggested that the terms Observer, Perceiver, Controller, Possessor of the Mind/Body were what I understood her to mean). Nonetheless, it is better for you to tell me what the "self" is from your own or an Objectivist position, because then I am able to provide consequences based on your very own assertion and we don't have to quibble over whether or not my proposed definition of the "self" is accurate enough for you.

When I say existent, I am referring to all phenomena which exist - if it exists, then it must have the capacity to be validly ascertained by an awareness; if it cannot be validly ascertained then it cannot be said to exist. Thus, I accept that things like matter, persons, time, order, consciousnesses, concepts, absences, etc. do exist. However, I do not accept that any of those things are inherently self-sufficiently existent in and of themselves - this is because 1) they either rely on causes and conditions in order to come into existence and/or 2) they are all dependent arisings (meaning that their existence necessarily depends on and is related with the existence of other phenomena - would firewood still be firewood if fire was a non-existent? The two both depend on each other for their existence). I am arguing that phenomena are not non-existent, but neither are they inherently self-sufficiently existent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not feel comfortable continuing this discussion. I apologize for intruding unnecessarily into your forums. As a closing remark, I would add that I have been attempting to argue from a buddhist perspective and have used some of their debate techniques and logical puzzles to address this question of the self. I am still open to being proven wrong, as I still question the validity of the arguments that they make. However, I am no longer comfortable discussing this topic because my own understanding of the topic is too incomplete and may therefore be more confusing than clear - it is unfair of me to impose that burden (my own lack of complete understanding) upon an audience which did not ask for someone who lacks that complete understanding of a subject to attempt to investigate said topic.

I would like to suggest a few excellent, though serious reads for anyone who is interested in the Buddhist position. I know that Buddhist philosophy is often dismissed outright, but I believe that this is due to a lack of understanding rather than an utter lack of philosophical rigor on the part of Buddhists. It appears that people often do the same with Objectivism too - this is something that I am obviously guilty of. I also see that the Objectivist self is identified as the Observer - this makes sense.

Anyway, the books:

Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism - John Powers

Debate in Tibetan Buddhism - Daniel Perdue (this is almost a must if you really want to understand the foundation of buddhist epistemology, although its pretty heavy reading)

for extremely serious reads about Tibetan Buddhist philosophy, I would suggest anything by

George Dreyfus

Jeffrey Hopkins

Guy Newland

Anne Klein

Again, Thank you all for your interest and clarifications, I understand the Objectivist position much better now. All the best.

Edited by Questioner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is unfair of me to impose that burden (my own lack of complete understanding) upon an audience which did not ask for someone who lacks that complete understanding of a subject to attempt to investigate said topic.

At the very least, I appreciate that you recognize this. Other "not-yous" have come to this forum without that understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...