The Reincarnation posts, especially Elexina's response, made me think of this question.
I've never been able to define "self" to my satisfaction. We would all agree that losing most body parts and having them changed would not cause you to lose your identity. "Mind" is typically defined as "self", but do you think that if you became severely mentally ill, to the extent that your personality completely changed, you would still be you? Or would such an illness be tantamount to death and the birth of someone new? What part of you cannot be lost or changed without causing you to lose your identity and become someone else?
How do you define "self?"
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
"Self" is a collection of memories that tells you who you are.
You remember your own childhood, and you remember reading that last sentence. If you remembered another person's childhood, and remembered something else entirely, then you would be a different person. (For example, if you remembered growing up in Southern England and you remembered writing that sentence, then you would be me.)
You are your memories.
If you were literally to lose all your memories, and be unable to form new ones, then you would cease to be yourself. In fact you would cease to be a self.
Hence, there can be no life after death.
[This message was edited by den0eng3 on 06-25-02 at 04:09 PM.] ************************************************* 06-25-02, 04:07 PM Sarai What about people with severe amnesia? Are they no longer people? Has the original person in that body "died" and a new person has been "born"?
06-25-02, 04:13 PM den0eng3 In theory, I suppose, yes. But the amnesia would have to be so severe that it would not be survivable. You have to remember how to breathe, for example.
The only people with total amnesia are dead people.
06-25-02, 09:03 PM dAdrEmr as with anything, the definition of self resides in three things first, self is the definition of being an individual and that is a separation of one from all others.. therefore self is defined by what it is not second, by saying that self has a definition you need to define its beginning present and goal this is accomplished by questions finally self is defined by the interaction of the self and all else. as 'all else' is encountered and the question answer cycle begins the direction of development in the question answer cycle is an affirmation of self in that the control excersised shows the percentage of self and all else in the actuality of self
06-25-02, 09:38 PM den0eng3 Wow!
dAdrEmr, I've read your post five times now, and contrary to my first impression, it does make sense! A lot of sense, in fact.
The only thing I haven't quite grasped is that thing about "percentage". Could you elaborate, please?
Also, if I've understood it right, it doesn't seem to me to be inconsistent with my own definition, but it expands on it. Do you agree?
06-26-02, 01:55 AM tsaeb Self is that part of a human being which wills either the human being's way, or God's way, or both ways. At first, self is mind and heart operating so. When mind and heart admit God, they become spirit and soul, respectively. When mind does not completely admit God, or when mind is wavering, then the human being is double minded and unstable in all his ways. Note that the human heart is considered desperately wicked until it admits God.
06-26-02, 02:35 AM MrSensitive "Self" is that part of man that controls the Ego. One could say, it is man's "spirit"- that part of man which is in direct contact with Truth (i.e. god, nature, etc...).
Ego desires to feel good.
The Self desires to BE good.
Mr(Gimme an "S"!)Sensitive
06-26-02, 09:41 AM Elexina "Self" is what makes us who we are (which is undoubtedly different for every person). It is memories and beliefs and values, it is thoughts and hopes and dreams. That is what makes us "us," and individuals. Everyone is different because of what they feel and believe.
"Self" is also our physical being, though. It is our hair color and our body shape and our walk and talk. These things may be superficial, but think of how hard it would be to convince someone you were "you" if you didn't look like you! You would still BE "you" but your "self" would be different. A good example of this would be the movie "FACE/OFF." Sean Archer was still Sean Archer, even though he looked like Castor Troy, but good luck convincing his wife!
However, it is difficult to pinpoint when the "self" as we know it ceases to exist. When we feel sick or are hurt, we don't 'feel like ourselves,' but we are still "us." I have never lost a limb or had an organ transplant, but somehow I think that if I lost part of myself or had part of someone else inside me, I would feel different. My sense of "self" would be all askew, I think. I would still be me, but I would be different, I think.
I think that if you became severely ill to the point where you could no longer care for yourself, comprehend your surroundings, make yourself understood, that sort of thing, then you would no longer be "yourself." You would still be there, you would exist, but the "self" in you would be unrecognizable.
I think that the loss or change of any part of your body would affect your "self" to a degree, but obviously some more than others. Organs and limbs and whathaveyou would not affect it so much, but brain damage can entirely change who you are.
And now I'm asking myself "self, what about the eyes?" If I had an eye transplant (hypothetically) would I still be me, even though I'm seeing through someone else's eyes? How much of who we are is defined by how we see the world?
...I think I may have gone off on quite a tangent here. Please, if I'm unclear, ask me and I'll try to reword it...
06-26-02, 02:26 PM den0eng3 Elexina, you make some interesting points which demand further discussion. But first, I would be grateful if you would put me out of my misery and attend to this.
06-27-02, 02:04 AM niceday Dear Sarai,
I hope you don't mind if I answer this question which a quote from what self is from the Baha'i perspective:
"Self has two meanings, or is used in two senses, in the Baha'i writings; one is self, the identity of the individual created by God. This is the self mentioned in such passages as "he hath known God who hath known himself", etc. The other self is the ego, the dark, animalistic heritage each one of us has, the lower nature that can develop into a monster of selfishness, brutality, lust and so on. It is this self we must struggle against, or this side of our natures, in order to strengthen and free the spirit within us and help it to attain perfection. Self-sacrifice means to subordinate this lower nature and its desires to the more godly and noble side of our selves. Ultimately, in its highest sense, self-sacrifice means to give our will and our all to God to do with as He pleases. Then He purifies and glorifies our true self until it becomes a shining and wonderful reality." (Shoghi Effendi: Living the Life, Pages: 18-19)
Kind regards,
Suzanne
06-27-02, 07:17 PM clarebear Very interesting question Sarai. I believe that it is what you have done that makes you who you are. It is every experience which in turn becomes as denOeng3 said your memories. If you did not have your memories then you would not be you. I believe that if someone becomes mentally ill then they do lose their self. If someone has dementia and believes they are Napoleon then yes... they have lost their "self".
06-27-02, 07:36 PM Sarai Very interesting answers. Thanks, everyone!
Now, as a non-theist, I don't really have any problem with these answers. However, were I a theist, I would have some serious questions that sound funny, but that really aren't. I'd be curious to hear what the theists have to say about this.
1- does a person who is injured enough early in life to lose their former "identity" due to amnesia, and forms a new "identity" with new memories for the rest of their lives, have two souls? Did the one that "died" after the accident go to heaven and a new one entered the body?
2- does a person who is severely mentally ill (but happily deluded) for 3/4 of his life spend eternity as the first, healthy mind or as the mentally ill, but happily deluded mind?
3- What controls the self? How can anyone be blamed, in the ultimate, godly sense, for his actions if his "self" is tied to something as physical as the mind, which like any other organ is susceptible to illnesses and malfunctions (and also noting the fact that such "failures" of the mind can happen to believers and non-believers alike).
06-27-02, 07:50 PM den0eng3
quote:Originally posted by Elexina: Done. Now, what's the problem with my answers in *this* post?
Thanks, Elexina. I’ve responded in that thread.
Right. Here goes.
1. You wrote: "Self" is .... memories and beliefs and values, it is thoughts and hopes and dreams. People can, and do, change their beliefs, values, etc. However, your memories are a record of your past, and you can't truly change them, any more than you can change your past. You can lose some memories through trauma, or partially suppress memories, or convince yourself of the validity of lies about yourself, but those are not the same thing at all. Unless you think that when a person changes an opinion or belief then they suddenly cease to exist and are re-created as another person entirely, then I think you are incorrect to include items 2, 3, 4 and 5 in your list.
2. You wrote: ... if you didn't look like you ... you would still BE "you" but your "self" would be different. I don't agree at all. I think that "Face/Off" example is an excellent illustration of why that statement is incorrect.
3. You wrote: However, it is difficult to pinpoint when the "self" as we know it ceases to exist. I maintain that this is when you lose all memories of your life. See point (5), below.
4. You wrote: I think that if I lost part of myself or had part of someone else inside me, I would feel different. Oooeer, missus! I understand that women do feel different with a part of someone else inside them, but that's probably not strictly relevant here!
5. You wrote: I think that if you became severely ill to the point where you could no longer care for yourself, comprehend your surroundings, make yourself understood, that sort of thing, then you would no longer be "yourself." You would still be there, you would exist, but the "self" in you would be unrecognizable.
I once saw a documentary about a man who had severe brain-damage. He could clearly remember everything from before his accident, but the damage was such that since then he could only store new memories for about two or three minutes.
He was continuously under the impression that he had just awoken from a long coma, and every few minutes he would feel that he was experiencing his first moment of consciousness since his accident. If his wife left the room for a moment and returned, he would embrace her tearfully, thinking it was the first time he had seen her for many years. When shown a video recording of himself, taken an hour before, he denied that the person in the video was him, and accused the film-makers of playing a cruel trick.
Before his accident he had been a skilful pianist, and his wife said that the only time when he was not in great distress was when he was able to lose himself in playing the piano. However, if he played a piece with a "Da capo" mark [an instruction part way through a piece, to repeat the first section before continuing], by the time he reached it he would already have forgotten starting to play the piece. So he would keep repeating the first section over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over until he was too tired to continue, or his wife interrupted him. And then the whole tearful reunion thing would happen again.
The film was very distressing to watch, but very thought-provoking. It occurred to me that the only thing that made him him was those early memories from before the accident. If he had lost those as well, then he really wouldn't be himself at all. He would be an isolated consciousness, adrift in an endless, featureless ocean of time, with no identity and no frame of reference. Every few minutes he would be re-born as a new "self", with no past and no idea of who he was. A terrifying, miserable thought. A life without memories is no life at all.
6. You wrote: If I had an eye transplant (hypothetically) would I still be me, even though I'm seeing through someone else's eyes? My mother recently had cataracts removed from both eyes, an operation that involves removing the entire natural lens and replacing it with an artificial one. She confessed to me before the surgery that she was concerned about exactly the point you are raising. I haven’t discussed that particular issue with her since (I will do so next time I see her), but she certainly seems to be the same person now that she was before, except she can see better!
7. You wrote: ...I think I may have gone off on quite a tangent here. Not at all. It was all very thoughtful and relevant, in my view.
06-28-02, 01:09 AM niceday
quote:Originally posted by Sarai: I'd be curious to hear what the theists have to say about this.
1- does a person who is injured enough early in life to lose their former "identity" due to amnesia, and forms a new "identity" with new memories for the rest of their lives, have two souls? Did the one that "died" after the accident go to heaven and a new one entered the body?
2- does a person who is severely mentally ill (but happily deluded) for 3/4 of his life spend eternity as the first, healthy mind or as the mentally ill, but happily deluded mind?
3- What controls the self? How can anyone be blamed, in the ultimate, godly sense, for his actions if his "self" is tied to something as physical as the mind, which like any other organ is susceptible to illnesses and malfunctions (and also noting the fact that such "failures" of the mind can happen to believers and non-believers alike).
Dear Sarai,
If you think of the "self" as being the soul, then I believe that the soul is stable no matter what happens in a person's life. Our memories may be erased, dementia can cloud the mind, illness can make a person do and say things they would never have otherwise done before, but the soul is stable. It's like a flame which is hidden by a barrel. You can't see it anymore, but the flame is still there just the same.
'Abdu'l-Baha says that the body is dependent on the soul, and not the other way around. Without a body, the soul lives on. It's like a bird which has been freed from a cage; but a body cannot live without the soul. It would just be an empty container.
As to your third question, God, being just, infinitely kind, loving and compassionate, would never judge a soul based on that for which it is not responsible. Of course His love, tenderness and mercy would surround such a soul as you describe.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
06-28-02, 03:30 AM curls a person is three parts, soul,spirit,body. the real you or self is spirit and that is the eternal part. the mind is attached to the spirit in that the mind can be trained by your spirit-the spirit is either dead or alive. the body is dust and to dust it will return. so, as a man/woman thinks, he/she is. a person who has lost their mind still has it only it is cankered. they are still the same person, just not as you remember or would like them to be. i believe in the spiritual, and my response to your question is that self is as i have interperated it to be and a person that has amnesia or something wrong upstairs is either physically damaged or inhabited by wrong spirits holding that person captive.
06-28-02, 07:39 AM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by den0eng3: Right. Here goes.
Well, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, of course, but just because you disagree with me does not make me wrong. Sarai asked for opinions. I gave her mine.
So, here *I* go.
1. Our memories, beliefs, values, thoughts, hopes and dreams make us who we are. Yes, beliefs and such can change, but it is more of a maturation or a becoming than an outright change. It is still part of who we are. If you don't feel that your hopes and values make you who you are, that is your opinion, but I know that they are an essential part of me. I am not wrong to include those. 2. My point is that sometimes people's perception of us helps make us who we are. Therefore, if I suddenly looked like Nicholas Cage and people began treating me as Nicholas Cage, I would lose part of myself, part of my identity. 3. I agree that you are no longer yourself when you have lost all of your memories. But there may be other stages or points in life when you are no longer yourself, and that line may be too fine to identify. 4. Obviously, you missed my point. I think that if I lost part of myself or had part of someone else (i.e. A HEART, LUNG, KIDNEY!!!!) inside me, I would feel different. This has nothing to do with my being a woman. It is entirely relevant here. 5. Your example is not quite what I meant. Certainly, this man remembered himself clearly, as he was before the accident, but he had no knowledge of his current self. What does that mean? Is he no longer himself? I was refering to people who have no understanding of past, present, or future, no understanding of anything. I believe that those people are no longer themselves. 6. Certainly, your mother is still herself. I was talking about having my entire eyes replaced with someone else's (not artificial eyes). Would I still see the world the same? The basis of that comment, which you failed to address, was how much of how we see our selves is due to how we see the world? 7. Relevant, but wrong, apparently...
08-24-02, 05:46 PM Sarai I thought I’d share this, since we’ve had this long discussion about the self, and (most importantly, since this post is too long to expect many people to read it) because I will understand it better once I’ve put it in my own words.
Two days ago I went to a Buddhist Temple to ask the Buddhists there if there was a class or something that I could take to learn about Buddhism. There was nothing like that, but one of the monks there took me around the temple and talked to me for a while, but his English was very difficult to understand and some of what he talked about, such as teachings about gods, heaven and hell, went against what I believe is true. I left thankful to the monk for his kindness but thinking that maybe Buddhism isn’t for me, after all.
However, before I left, he gave me a book called _What the Buddha Taught_ by Walpola Rahula. Now, I’m only on Chapter II, but the slant of this book is not at all mythical or dogmatic, and in fact seems to contradict some of what the monk told me. When I finish the book I think I’ll have to go back with questions.
Anyway, the book is FANTASTIC!!!! I’m only on Chapter II, but I was so excited about the discussion of self that I want to talk about it, but if you do that in real life you get strange sideways glances, so I decided to post it here.
The Buddha taught that there are four noble truths, and understanding them is a path that leads to Nirvana (absolute reality, extinction, liberation).
The first Noble Truth of Buddhism is called "The Noble Truth of Dukkha [impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, conflict, suffering, emptiness]."
The Buddha taught that everything is Dukkha. One kind of Dukkha is the Dukkha of "conditioned states." The conditioned states are the combination of things that give us the illusion of self.
According to the Buddha, what we call "I" or "self" is a combination of forces, and there is no one, permanent, unchanging thing that constitutes the self.
He said there are "five aggregates" that make up the illusion of "self."
1) The Aggregate of Matter
Matter, according to the Buddha, is of the four elements - solidity, fluidity, heat and motion. These elements have derivatives, including our sense organs and the things that our organs sense. There are six sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. There are six things that can be sensed: visible form, sound, odor, taste, tangibility, and thoughts or ideas (literally called "mind-objects."). The last idea of "mind-objects" really excited me, because as the atheists know, I just came to similar, but less well-developed, understanding recently.
2) The Aggregate of Sensations
These are the sensations we feel when our sense organs experience matter: the sensation of sight, the sensation of sound, the sensation of smell, the sensation of taste, the sensation of touch, and the sensation of the mind in contact with thoughts and ideas.
3) The Aggregate of Perception
Perception is how we understand and interpret our sensations. It is what tells us whether an object is physical or mental. It is what helps us understand whether we are seeing or hearing something. It is what distinguishes between blue and green.
4) The Aggregate of Mental Formations
This is the aggregate that I understand least, and I doubt it really exists. I also think it would be better called "the Aggregate of will," since I would call "Mental Formations" ideas and thoughts, which fall under "matter."
Anyway, this aggregate is our will or volition. Once one wills, he then acts, using the aggregates of matter, sensations and perception to do so. Buddha taught that it is only from this aggregate that karma comes into play, since senses and perceptions aren’t acts of our own volition. They simply happen to us. There are 52 "mental activities" of will that Buddha described, such as desire, concentration, conceit, confidence, energy, hate, and the notion of self. I still think these would all fall under "mind-objects," but I’ll ask the monk more about it when I go back to the temple... or maybe if any of you are still reading at this point, you can post something to help clarify this for me.
5) The Aggregate of Consciousness
Consciousness is simply the awareness of our sensations. For example, there is the consciousness of the sense of sight. It is different from perception because one who perceives understands what he is seeing and can label and categorize it. However, it is possible to be conscious of something without perceiving it.
The Buddha argues that all of these 5 aggregates are transitory and in the process of change. None of them is constant. Matter changes, gets old, can be molded, dies. Sensations change in response to changing matter. Perceptions and consciousness change as sensations change. Volition changes as one perceives things differently.
The "self" is really a combination of these five things at any given moment. Each moment, these things are changing. Thus, a new self is born each time one of these 5 things changes, which is every second of our lives. Self is simply the result of cause and effect, and is not permanent or individual. It is impermanent, changing, and dependent on everything around us. It comes from our own volition, but there is only will, not a willer. There is no thinker behind the thought, no wanter behind the will, no senser behind the sensations, no one who is conscious behind the consciousness. The book quotes a philosopher named Buddhaghosa who explained, "Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found. The deeds are, but no doer is found."
Our individuality is an illusion – we are made up of many things, and what we are dies every moment. I am a different person now than I was when I began to write this. You are a different person than you were before you read this. Our death therefore is also an illusion – it is simply a change in the interplay between these 5 things that is dramatic enough for others to perceive, like taking apart the parts of a car and putting each part to use somewhere else.
"I think therefore I am" goes against this philosophy, and frankly, this makes more sense to me. If I say "I think," who is the "I" doing the thinking? No one. There is thought, but no thinker. It is like a car - there is a motor, but no "motorer". And the self is like a car in which the motor (and all other parts of the car) are constantly, incessently being taken apart and reassembled in new ways. Once you've changed the doors, frame, painting, interior, and engine of a car, is it still the same car? If you did that constantly, that would be like what we are.
"The thinker" is not matter, sensation, volition, perception or consciousness, but the combination of them which constantly changes, and therefore "the thinker" is an illusion.
[This message was edited by Sarai on 08-24-02 at 05:56 PM.]
06-04-03, 01:30 PM jusork I've changed my answer a lot since I first read it.
If your mind is altered, you become something different just in the same body. And sense your body is not yourself (just an acessory that shows where you mind was), you have changed yourself. If you change any other thing, it would become something other than what you know it as.
06-29-03, 10:08 PM windblowing A person that has live at lest 40 years has changed, so in one way your "self" has die and another self lives on
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 275 | Location: Portsmouth, United Kingdom | Registered: 06-17-02
"self", as I imagine it from my POV is 'me'. I am me, I am not you, I am my own body, not yours, I am from my mothers body conceived through fertilization, I have taken on genes from the mixture of the two that made it all possible, I am my own brain, that controls the rest of me as a ‘self’.
I am myself as 'me', I am influenced by my daily surroundings and the environment forces that will try to control my existence as a human-being.
My body is mine as me, you that are not me can try to control me, you can try to influence ‘me’, but in the ultimate end when there is no longer ‘me’ as my-“self”, there will be no-me.
My existence is a figure standing, breathing hopelessly not knowing why I am here in the first place, for many living years trying to figure out why me, as a "self" in not knowing what will happen upon my demise to the ‘self’ within me
Posts: 81 | Location: Toronto | Registered: 09-26-07
