Arguing Against Self Existence

[1137]

In this thread I'm simply looking for a refutation of self existence, a denial that "I exist" is an axiomatic fact for whoever says it. Whether you're a dualist or monist either way, I don't see how self existence can be denied, and yet most religions, as well as secular philosophies, reject the importance, if not the very existence, of a self/mind/internal experience/etc. Yet it is self evident, relies on no simpler premises, and cannot be denied without relying on it. In my religion/philosophy, rejecting the self is as illogical and hopeless as rejecting the law of identity. I'm curious to see if this view holds.

Xeper and Remanifest.

 

[Skwim]

Kind of depends on your definition of "I." What you experience as self may be nothing more than a continual fusion of independent elements in differing structures that give the perception of oneness. Just like 1 + 2 +13 + 567 = 583, 13 + 400 + 55 + 115 = 583. Although sense of "I" (183) may be the same, it's not always constituted of the same elements.


.

 

[George-ananda]

'I think therefor I am' stands for me. I'm not one to care about discrediting the obvious.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In this thread I'm simply looking for a refutation of self existence, a denial that "I exist" is an axiomatic fact for whoever says it. Whether you're a dualist or monist either way, I don't see how self existence can be denied, and yet most religions, as well as secular philosophies, reject the importance, if not the very existence, of a self/mind/internal experience/etc. Yet it is self evident, relies on no simpler premises, and cannot be denied without relying on it. In my religion/philosophy, rejecting the self is as illogical and hopeless as rejecting the law of identity. I'm curious to see if this view holds.

Xeper and Remanifest.

I can't follow you. Give me an example of a religion that denies the existence and importance of self/mind/internal experience. If anything, these things are the core of most religions and what their morals and tenants are based on.

Other than that, I can't make out what you're saying.

 

[1137]

I can't follow you. Give me an example of a religion that denies the existence and importance of self/mind/internal experience. If anything, these things are the core of most religions and what their morals and tenants are based on.

Other than that, I can't make out what you're saying.

Christianity, for example, attempts to suppress the self in favor of the external. Buddhism states the self is an illusion. Atheism tends to state only matter exists, and all reduces to it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm.

Christianity, for example, attempts to suppress the self in favor of the external. Buddhism states the self is an illusion. Atheism tends to state only matter exists, and all reduces to it.

Christian acknowledges the self, says it is sinful, and says to renew the self (one's sinful internal nature) is to have the internal nature of Christ. So they no longer put importance to their old nature but their new one in Christ.

Buddhism (Mahayana) says that our self is an illusion and to see the real Self (our true nature) we need to get rid of the delusion and our Self or our true nature would be exposed.

Atheist just believe that there are no such thing as deities. I am an atheist. I believe there is no such thing as deities but not many atheist say their mind and internal experience are not important. Some of us find our internal experience through our families, others work, others their mate, and others their selves (loners for example).

Actually probably most religions put importance on self, mind, and internal experience. That's the only way to "be saved", be "enlightened", and so forth is to focus and acknowledge our nature and change it from old to new.

 

[bobhikes]

In this thread I'm simply looking for a refutation of self existence, a denial that "I exist" is an axiomatic fact for whoever says it. Whether you're a dualist or monist either way, I don't see how self existence can be denied, and yet most religions, as well as secular philosophies, reject the importance, if not the very existence, of a self/mind/internal experience/etc. Yet it is self evident, relies on no simpler premises, and cannot be denied without relying on it. In my religion/philosophy, rejecting the self is as illogical and hopeless as rejecting the law of identity. I'm curious to see if this view holds.

Xeper and Remanifest.

I have 2 problems with the self

1) What is it. Is is a portion of your mind, is it the whole you, is it reflex's and survival instinct. You need to have a clear definition before you can say it exists.

2) How do you detach from the self to prove it exists. I can not understand your self, I am not sure I understand my self. I can hardly prove your self exists only you can. Who can confirm your findings, how can you be sure you haven't mistaken.

 

[Iti oj]

Christianity, for example, attempts to suppress the self in favor of the external. Buddhism states the self is an illusion. Atheism tends to state only matter exists, and all reduces to it.

How does materialism argue against the i?

 

[Willamena]

How does materialism argue against the i?

'There is only matter.'

 

[Iti oj]

'There is only matter.'

I am matter

 

[Willamena]

Yet it is self evident, relies on no simpler premises, and cannot be denied without relying on it.

Hence the means to defeat it is to realize that it is none of those.

It's a tool of grammar, a device whose only purpose is to introduce a subject to an object. A subject that doesn't really differ from the object.

 

[1137]

How does materialism argue against the i?

1. the mind is not material
2. only matter exists
3. therefore, the mind does not exist.

 

[Iti oj]

1. the mind is not material
2. only matter exists
3. therefore, the mind does not exist.

Say who? I don't agree . Nor does any of that deny the self

 

[1137]

Say who? I don't agree . Nor does any of that deny the self

If you're a material monist you simply cannot logically accept something besides matter. Does not matter if you say it, it's a logical necessity. I should clarify in that the mind can be equated with the Self in part, it is a necessary aspect for self realization.

 

[Iti oj]

If you're a material monist you simply cannot logically accept something besides matter. Does not matter if you say it, it's a logical necessity. I should clarify in that the mind can be equated with the Self in part, it is a necessary aspect for self realization.

Who says the self needs to.be separateto exist. I don't agree

 

[Willamena]

I am matter

Says a symbol.

 

[Iti oj]

Says a symbol.

Damn straight

 

[Willamena]

Damn straight

...at the moon.

 

[Iti oj]

...at the moon.

Even if miss I'll end up among the stars

 

[Willamena]

Even if miss I'll end up among the stars

You do that.