How can there be a self?

[tamara]

Buddhism teaches that there truly is no self because all that we're essentially composed of is externally influenced-- what we see, what we read, who we meet, what we remember, our desires..... when we tear down all of these, what are we left with?? Nothing. Creative thought was influenced in one form or another by something else, so that isn't completely "self" either. Sure, each of us has been uniquely composed with different attributes that make you who you are, but that's just because of what was presented to you throughout our life. If you'd been born in another time and place then you'd be a different person. Where's the core? What can be considered a core? There is none.

This is what my teacher has been telling my class for the past month and it makes me so damn angry because I know she's wrong... yet, I can't give her a reason as to why or how.

I'm really confused. What's behind our externally gained identities? How do you know it's there? Could someone please give me some sort of explanation? I don't know who else I could ask that wouldn't agree with my teacher.

Tamara

[y_feldblum]

The same argument can be applied to anything. There is no spoon: all there is, is the effects of many different causes, such as electromagnetic particles and fields interfering, and the same with the weak and strong forces. If the earth's magnetic field had been different, the spoon would have been something else. When you tear down the laws of electromagnetism etc., then what are you left with? That infamous line from the Matrix.

This "argument" overlooks an axiom: things exist, and they are what they are. A spoon is what it is. A person is who he is. Things and people are not infinitely malleable; they are not merely a flux without identity.

The "argument" also overlooks another fact: that humans think and act volitionally. External influences are not the cause of how a person acts, though they may influence how he acts; that person is the cause of how he acts.

[tamara]

Thank you.

[stephen_speicher]

Buddhism teaches that there truly is no self because all that we're essentially composed of is externally influenced-- what we see, what we read, who we meet, what we remember, our desires..... when we tear down all of these, what are we left with?? Nothing. Creative thought was influenced in one form or another by something else, so that isn't completely "self" either. Sure, each of us has been uniquely composed with different attributes that make you who you are, but that's just because of what was presented to you throughout our life. If you'd been born in another time and place then you'd be a different person. Where's the core? What can be considered a core? There is none.

This is what my teacher has been telling my class for the past month and it makes me so damn angry because I know she's wrong... yet, I can't give her a reason as to why or how.

I'm really confused. What's behind our externally gained identities? How do you know it's there? Could someone please give me some sort of explanation? I don't know who else I could ask that wouldn't agree with my teacher.

Tamara

When you are born your mind is a blank slate for you to write on for a lifetime. You are not simply an animal whose actions are, in response to its environment, biologically determined. Your consciousness is volitonal, so you get to choose those things that you value based on your ideas, which themselves are a result of your volitional thinking. The existence of a world external to your being does not determine what you choose to think; the external world simply exists, and you get to make of it what you will. What things are good or bad, what actions are right or wrong, is for you as an individual to determine. If your choices correspond with the facts, you can survive and even flourish. If they do not, you die. The "self" that your teacher is denying is your very spirit and soul -- your conscious mind filled with all that which you have volitionally chosen. Note that most all those who are anti-individual are really anti-mind, and they usually prefer to speak in vague bromides rather than really understand the nature of man.

[DavidOdden]

Sure, each of us has been uniquely composed with different attributes that make you who you are, but that's just because of what was presented to you throughout our life. If you'd been born in another time and place then you'd be a different person. Where's the core? What can be considered a core? There is none.

I would go so far as to say that you are born with a blank slate, chalk, and an eraser, and you have to figure out what these tools are for, how to write, and what to write on that slate (metaphorically speaking). We don't all come equipped with the exact same kind of slate, chalk & eraser. G. Bush senior apparently has the gene that makes brussel sprouts taste nasty to him, but I love brussel sprouts. It is because every person is presented with different experiences in life that we are different. And it it because we are volitional that we can seek certain experiences and avoid others.

What sort of nutty class is this anyhow? I mean, unless it's Introduction to Buddhism (in which case, you would expect there to be Buddhist philosophy taught, and you shouldn't be angry at the teacher).

[WorthyLoverOfExistence]

This sounds to me like an attempt to claim "you can't define consciousness; therefor it doesn't exist".

If you have OPAR, go the the part where Peikoff gives an example of how to argue with people who deny axioms.

If you don't have OPAR, get a copy.

Don't let your anger at your teacher or the situation cloud your ability to think clearly. Try to use this as a opportunity to really observe "philosophy in action", and to experience first-hand the real battle we're fighting today.

...those who fight for the future, live in it today.