OK, again who do you think is doing the thinking and realizing? who is switching quickly between tasks? Look at it this way: an apple grows on a tree, falls, then rots. Are we talking about one apple, or three?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arguing Against Self Existence
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
OK, again who do you think is doing the thinking and realizing? who is switching quickly between tasks? Look at it this way: an apple grows on a tree, falls, then rots. Are we talking about one apple, or three?
Have read thru the entire thread (thru post #37) and I'm not as clearly seeing that "most religions, as well as secular philosophies, reject the importance, if not the very existence of a self/mind/internal experience/etc."
If you left it at just "reject the importance," I'd find it easier to relate to as a plausible assertion that does apply to those who are saying it does. But the thread title and rest of that claim is bringing in "existence."
Being Gnostic Christian myself, I understand the Self created by God (the I am) is arguably all that exists, and thus is opposite of what you are conveying, so would think even if you don't fully agree with Gnostic Christian notions, that you'd possibly concede such a paradigm is acknowledging the importance and not rejecting internal in favor of external. Then possibly, you'd add, that's not what you are referring to.
Yet, given my ongoing awareness of this philosophical (and spiritual) predicament, I really don't see most as rejecting the axiom of self existence, but do see how you / anyone could think there is clear rejection of importance of internal (thinking) in favor of external events, or perceived reality.
Anyway, my ongoing understandings would reject the importance of self existing as physical being, so perhaps opposite of what you are getting at, but I actually understand both premises as matter of fundamental faith. (The other defeating premise being rejecting importance self existing as spiritual being. Whereas actual premise, in which the faith resides is the positive claim, i.e. I am spiritual being / physical is illusion; or I am physical being / spiritual is delusion.)
My path to getting there was a retraining of sorts, a review of my daily and overall thoughts, how they are routinely applied and reinforced to get to the point where I (previously) identified self as physical and perceived / believed the spiritual was unreal and/or unknowable.
I say all of this, because given how I experienced the 'cross over,' I think certain notions can be made to work the other way, though I now recognize how implausible it would be to stick to that. And yet, the entirety of physical existence, in my understanding, rests on such notions. For as I understand it, we (or I) were at one point only aware of ourselves as what we now call spiritual being and then had a crossing over of sorts to arrive at basis of an existence / paradigm whereby only the physical is what can be known / said to exist about own self.
Thus, to deny existence of self, could be had with such ideas as:
- (simplistic) I deny that my physical/spiritual self exists (I see that as either/or, but would amount to rejection and denial of that self existing)
- these thoughts are not my own (where thoughts are ideas about own self existence)
- these thoughts are experienced by an entity that is not me
- the meaning and understanding of these thoughts / experiences are given all value by *not me (or something understood by all as external, i.e. the sun)
I'm pretty sure I (or anyone) could come up with a few more, and with only slight nuanced changes in the assertion. I'm just trying to convey what OP is requesting, where OP said: "I don't see how self existence can be denied"
Again, I spin that differently, but do actually think entire basis of physical/external perceived reality is based on such notions, held in place by faith, but generally unexplored because of how 'complete' the cross over is believed to be.
Do we have any reason to think the law of identity is relevant?
What do you mean by "is it relevant"?
I wouldn't say there is reason to consider it false, but there is cause to recognize it is not the entire story. It's worth remembering a couple of things that are elements of the story. First, that identity is ultimately a construct, or a map of the territory. Second, that the universe is highly interrelated, interconnected, and interdependent. Both of these combined mean that defining "object X" as if it is itself and nothing else is not so straightforward.
Pragmatically, it's generally a good idea to respond to the problem of hard solipsism by assuming that the things we perceive exist, but fundamentally, proving the existence of yourself an instant ago has all the philosophical problems with proving that someone else exists.
Are you familiar with the Omphalos hypothesis? It's the idea that God created the world with the appearance of age, including implanting false memories in us. Can you exclude the hypothesis? I can't.
That's not a valid analogy.
- You see an apple on the tree.
- A moment later, you see an apple fall, at which point, the apple on the tree is gone.
- A moment later, you see an apple on the ground that looks - as far as you can tell - like the original apple.
Is your judgement of the apple's appearance reliable? Maybe, maybe not.
Is it the same apple? Maybe, maybe not. It would fit the facts for it to be the same apple, but other explanations could also fit the facts.
Last edited:
I'm asking what the law of identity has to do with any argument you're trying to make.
Tautologies are true, but trivially so. They're useless for demonstrating anything other than themselves.
Identity is the map for others sure, but not for oneself. Identity is simply who you are, irrelevant of different maps to be drawn. But I guess I don't understand how the map analogy, or interconnectedness, is somehow supposed to argue against identity.
You have a great point. We can even see a physical body from moment to moment, take pictures of it, measure it with material means. But we cannot with the mind, only the individual can truly be directly aware of the internal change. Property Dualism wins again.
It's just a comparison to illustrate.
Can you give an example of how self-existence is being down-played or denied in religions? The teaching of Buddhism, for instance, does not deny self, it only puts into perspective. It frames it in the context of a philosophy of impermanence of being. And Christianity holds an individual self and their opportunity for salvation in utmost importance.
It is? Isn't the understanding of "who you are" a story you tell yourself? A map that is drawn?
For example, do you tell yourself that the "who you are" includes the air in "your" lungs? That "your" lungs are even "yours," when the substance that makes them came from things "you" ate, drank, and breathed? Do you tell yourself the story that part of "your" identity are socially-constructed categories like political parties, religions, genders, and so forth? Maybe you think "you" is categorically different from all other animals on the planet? Maybe you don't? So many different ways to draw the map.
The "map of the territory" is an analogy of thought in relation to a real, external world. Thought is the "map" and the territory is what's "out there."
The law of identity is one of the so-called laws of thought. The identity at issue here is map, rather than territory.
Even if we just take it moment to moment, any time a self-aware being makes the realization "I exist", it's true. I do see the difference between a map and territory, and why identity is so tied to the map. But I am talking about the territory itself, which in order to even draw a map of it, must exist.
Claimed without support. How do you get from a filtered, imperfect perception and memory in a past moment to demonstrating your existence in the present moment?
"I" is defined by a boundary on the map. The map is an integral part of self-identity.
... and self-identity is completely tied up in the neurology of the brain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_basis_of_self
The distinction between "self" and "other" is a creation of the brain. When this brain function is impaired (e.g. by certain drugs), the "self"/"other" distinction is lost.
Why do I bother arguing with you when you don't exist?
There's a big difference between "I can't prove you exist" and "you don't exist."
It would be foolish to assume that the only things that actually exist are the things we can prove exist.
But you don't even accept "I exist" as true.
Yerda
Veteran Member
You misinterpreted me. I don't deny that I exist; I reject your claim that "I exist" is axiomatic.
I think it's reasonable to treat the claim as true, but I recognize that we can't know with absolute certainty that it is true. I think "I exist" is an excellent tentative conclusion and that it fits the facts we have much better than "I don't exist", but I can't conclusively say with perfect certainty that we'll never, ever learn of some fact that refutes this.
I recognize "I exist" as a conclusion derived from induction. I have a high degree of confidence in this conclusion, but I recognize that induction has inherent limitations that restrict how confident we can be in its conclusions.
When it comes to the Law of Identity do you feel that "I can't conclusively say with perfect certainty that we'll never, ever learn of some fact that refutes this."
The realization that "I exist" is the realization that there is something that is not the world.
It is defeated by the realization that "I am not distinct from the world."