I'm me! Or aren't I?

[Smeemo]

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... -the-self2

Not only free will, but indeed my concept of myself as an entity separate from other individuals is but an illusion? I thought this was an intriguing read, and would be interested to hear what you sandvich-munching sons and daughters of mothers thought about it.

[Maringue]

Haven't read it yet, but it sounds like someone is rehashing Carl Jung's theories again.

[Saber]

I find that my life is complicated enough without existential crises.

[Smeemo]

What's most interesting to me is that our entire system of punitive justice hinges on free will existing. I don't think Bruce Hood, the author, is arguing for fatalism, but wouldn't our system of laws turn out to be egregiously immoral if our actions aren't actually "ours" as much as we think they are? I have no idea what the hell an alternative might look like, but it's a troubling possibility to consider.

And I'm afraid I don't know much about Mr. Jung. Hood seems to base his claims in neuroscience and behavioral psychology (that is, he has data at his disposal that Jung did not). I've heard others speak of Jung's collective unconscious theory, and it always reminded me of Plato's... ah hell, what was it called. Idea-Land or something (slaughtering his term, I know)--basically some almost-mystical realm where all possibilities of thought reside that all human beings have the potential to tap into.

[xalde]

Interesting read, may need to get the book for more detail. Reminds me of discussions on my philosophy classes. Now I feel the need to research and write a paper.

Summing it up the self not something independant, it is a conglomerate of your instincts and impulses and environemnt. Meaning the choices you think you're making independently are actually based on stuff like your hormones and urges and how the social and natural environment shaped you. What I think they fail to conisder though is that we most likely possess a "higher mind" so to speak, that we are capable of making decisions and performing actions despite our biology and environmental shaping. Or in other words someone may for example be a strict "neutral-good" character in DnD terms but can still make decisions and perform actions outside that alignment, which I want to think this article disagrees. That to me is the "self", the ability to rise above your impulses and environmental shaping. For some reason I'm thinking of Vulcans, who are able to control their emotions to make unbiased choices. Simliarly with the self, though many may not have that kind of control to rise above the instincts and other factors that shaped them.

So in short I think they're saying the self is just impulses and environmental shaping of you and your life and not necessarily an independant thing. I kinda agree that impulses and environmental upbringing shape a self, but go on to say that there is more there and that we have the ability to rise above that which is what the self truly is.

That's a lot of babble, I got carried away. TL;DR - article seems to say there is no self and I kinda agree but disagree.

[xalde]

it always reminded me of Plato's... ah hell, what was it called. Idea-Land or something (slaughtering his term, I know)--basically some almost-mystical realm where all possibilities of thought reside that all human beings have the potential to tap into.

Are you thinking of Plato's forms, that there is some pure form of anything (like a rock) and that we only "see" or "experience" the shadow of it?

[Rologton]

it always reminded me of Plato's... ah hell, what was it called. Idea-Land or something (slaughtering his term, I know)--basically some almost-mystical realm where all possibilities of thought reside that all human beings have the potential to tap into.

Are you thinking of Plato's forms, that there is some pure form of anything (like a rock) and that we only "see" or "experience" the shadow of it?

This is more "neo-platanism", which accepts the idea of Plato's "forms" (see: Allegory of the Cave).

The idea is that there are two worlds, the physical, which is what we experience, and the spiritual. What we experience are just representations of the spiritual form, which according to the belief is the only thing that is actually real. This was essentally the understanding of medieval scholars and theologians. As an example, the idea of transubstantiation (probably butchered that spelling), which is the belief that the eucharist is transformed into the body of Christ, is a neo-platanistic idea. The belief is that although it remains bread in its physical representation, its substance or form has been changed in the spiritual world. Although this particular belief, and a few others, remain, most of the neo-platanistic ideologies no longer hold suit, although the works of theologians like Aquinas are still widely studied.

This feels like a rehashing of medieval ideas to me. And yes, my Medieval Europe class was very interesting last semester.