RE: Does a "True Self" Exist?
July 7, 2015 at 8:43 pm
(This post was last modified: July 7, 2015 at 8:54 pm by Excited Penguin.)
I think there is no 'true self', and I don't see how there could be, really. We end up running into the same old problem here, namely the contention that humans possess free will. Surely, a being that possess such a quality-free will- would have a true self as well? But given how free will is merely an illusion I will go ahead and declare this 'true self' idea false as well.
Why doesn't a rock, a planet, or even a galaxy possess true self or free will as well? Why are only intelligent animals(e.g. humans) supposed to possess those things? Just because we express this 'knowledge' we have, in a different way than other 'entities' might? Aren't we running in a kind of bias here? To provide you with an example, how could we tell if a mentally handicaped person, who can't use language to express himself, has true self and free will? We couldn't, could we? These are, after all, simply things men believe of themselves, not demonstrable phenomena. So we run into a bit of difficulty here. Is it that we include in our criteria of things possesing 'free will' and having 'true selves' only such objects as can comprehensibly transmit this 'knowledge' they possess about their own nature? Wouldn't a moving galaxy 'know' that it's moving through space-time and 'knowingly' affecting the stars within it, just as a man might decide to move with his family in the suburbs and taking his family with him, just by doing so? Or does the galaxy need to be able to 'express' somehow this particular 'knowledge' it has of itself for it to qualify? Didn't it already do that though, through it's own human endeavour of creating and developing science and mathematics?
It is simply a failure of how we use language, I believe, that we are misled into thinking we can not only imagine but also comprehend such illogical concepts as 'true self', 'free will' or 'God'.
Why doesn't a rock, a planet, or even a galaxy possess true self or free will as well? Why are only intelligent animals(e.g. humans) supposed to possess those things? Just because we express this 'knowledge' we have, in a different way than other 'entities' might? Aren't we running in a kind of bias here? To provide you with an example, how could we tell if a mentally handicaped person, who can't use language to express himself, has true self and free will? We couldn't, could we? These are, after all, simply things men believe of themselves, not demonstrable phenomena. So we run into a bit of difficulty here. Is it that we include in our criteria of things possesing 'free will' and having 'true selves' only such objects as can comprehensibly transmit this 'knowledge' they possess about their own nature? Wouldn't a moving galaxy 'know' that it's moving through space-time and 'knowingly' affecting the stars within it, just as a man might decide to move with his family in the suburbs and taking his family with him, just by doing so? Or does the galaxy need to be able to 'express' somehow this particular 'knowledge' it has of itself for it to qualify? Didn't it already do that though, through it's own human endeavour of creating and developing science and mathematics?
It is simply a failure of how we use language, I believe, that we are misled into thinking we can not only imagine but also comprehend such illogical concepts as 'true self', 'free will' or 'God'.
