What is the nature of the self?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

How much of whom we are is changeable?

Ones thoughts, feelings, opinions, choices, reactions etc are what make up and constitute our “self”, they do not have a source however, in some already existing identity, they are rather always making ones identity, they are always constituting “oneself”.

When we find ourselves thinking in the opposite way, when we think that our opinions, thoughts, feelings etc are emanating from our “true selves”, that is when we cease to really be who we “are”, because we are trying to be ourselves as it were.

However, our opinions cannot be “who we are” because our opinions can change, our feelings can change, and the idea of identity is to be able to point to something that refers to the same thing every time.

Isn’t it true to say that who we are at any one time is partly dependent upon other people and how they conceive of us, and also partly dependent upon the particular attitudes, thoughts, feelings etc that we happen to be harbouring in that moment?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 838 • Replies: 12

No top replies

@existential potential,

Quote:

How much of whom we are is changeable?

EP, is your question your title, or your question above?

Quote:

Isn’t it true to say that who we are at any one time is partly dependent upon other people and how they conceive of us,

Not dependant, no – have influence exerted on us by other people, yes.

Quote:

and also partly dependent upon the particular attitudes, thoughts, feelings etc that we happen to be harbouring in that moment?

In terms of non physical self, would that be ALL of us?

I’ve seen a lot of theoretical argument (regarding 'self') that people take as gospel. To me, most of those theories are incomplete. Philosophies of ‘the nature of self’ seek understanding (which is fine), and in my view, if they result in inaction (by that I mean a lack of creating in life – for you can also quietly create, though not inactively create), then they are wrong (as in, they may have many correct parts, but are missing important ‘concepts’ that make the whole).

All philosophies of self that contain a full and balanced view of ‘self’ should (when understood, accepted and integrated) result in creation.

Of course any ‘theory’ on self is rather open to interpretation by the person ‘studying’ it, so one persons inaction doesn’t render any theory invalid.

1 Reply

@existential potential,

existential potential wrote:

How much of whom we are is changeable?

Ones thoughts, feelings, opinions, choices, reactions etc are what make up and constitute our “self”, they do not have a source however, in some already existing identity, they are rather always making ones identity, they are always constituting “oneself”.

When we find ourselves thinking in the opposite way, when we think that our opinions, thoughts, feelings etc are emanating from our “true selves”, that is when we cease to really be who we “are”, because we are trying to be ourselves as it were.

However, our opinions cannot be “who we are” because our opinions can change, our feelings can change, and the idea of identity is to be able to point to something that refers to the same thing every time.

Isn’t it true to say that who we are at any one time is partly dependent upon other people and how they conceive of us, and also partly dependent upon the particular attitudes, thoughts, feelings etc that we happen to be harbouring in that moment?

the self , to understand it better is to give it time , without knowledge or very little to come with the selfs own thoughts on anything

once the self or you become comfortable with your thoughts at some point , then search for knowledge

counter intuitve I know , but was how I approached this yrs ago

I relised at some point that if all you do is gather knowledge , your own thoughts or really , thinking become non expressed

it is difficult to think out of the box because your trained in a way to think a certain way , not always , but most of the time

0 Replies

to add

when we have own thoughts about anything , it beomes easier to see where we have gone right and wrong , in our thinking , when knowledge has begun to be accumulated

hence the self understands its self more fully

the only barrier to this , is the ego

0 Replies

@existential potential,

Quote:

What is the nature of the self?

Answer: An argumentative committee with an occasional temporary chairman.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

the only theory I have studied is a sociological theory of self developed by Cooley. Cooley says that our notion of "ourselves" is derived from the perceptions of others, in how we believe the other sees us. so we imagine the image others have of us, and we imagine the judgement that they make of us, or the image of us. so in order for us to have any notion of self, we must "imagine imaginations".

in this case, the "self" isn't anything over and above our own self-image, and what we believe others make of us. this means also that the self is entirely changeable, because we can just make new friends, and have a new "self".

2 Replies

@existential potential,

Quote:

says that our notion of "ourselves" is derived from the perceptions of others, in how we believe the other sees us.

I first heard this in the 1980's, and let me say what I thought then - this 'theory' is utterly wrong. That said, our image of who we are is certainly influenced by the reactions we experience of people around us. Let me put it this way - a guy walks up to you out of the blue and says 'you are a complete and utter arsehole'...are you now a complete and utter arsehole? Let's say you are in a room full of people and you do something with the very best of intentions that ends up emotionally hurting a popular girl in the room (in a way you couldn't have forseen), and they all turn on you for being a 'thoughtless cretin'...are you now truly a thoughtless cretin? Obviously you aren't either in either circumstance.

The reaction of others to us, is a reflection of their perception of us...which is greatly (but no where near completely) influenced by who we are and what we do - that's all it is.

We are able to rewire our brains purely because we want to...and while much of this is done as training for our profession - the most effective rewiring occurs when we choose to rewire 'who we are' - more specifically, our attitudes, our beliefs, the way we do things etc - and when we do this, we are in essence creating our own image.

As for the actual part that is 'self' - I've always thought that inextricably linked to what our 'concsciousness' is - and it's probably impossible to define where consciousness begins and ends.

I do like Fresco's definition, in that there are many parts to our brain that serve different purposes - purposes that are sometimes in conflict, and depending on what the situation is, one or the other part of the brain may win out.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Thought I'd see you here spreading Gurdjieffianism!

I would like to think that my personal Chairman of the Board is Sinatra.

1 Reply

@kuvasz,

Me too....with his money !

0 Replies

@vikorr,

I think I agree with what you say, in that just because someone thinks about us in a particular way, does not mean that that is who we are. However, inasmuch as the self is dependent upon other people, then in some sense you are a "complete and utter arsehole"- because that is how that person thinks of you. That person may be wrong, but you may have done something that means that you deserve the title of "complete and utter arsehole".

However, it doesn't mean that that is essentially who we are, because we can make up for our actions by doing something good, so that people will see us in a different light. In this sense, the self isn't anything substantial, it isn't some unchangeable essence, but we can in fact continually reinvent ourselves if we wanted to, in much the way you say, by cultivating different attitudes and beliefs.

Nevertheless, is change simply just the case of changing our attitudes and beliefs? Do we not need to be seen to have had a change in attitude by others? Of course, we can change without people being aware of that change, but there is a sense in which in order to be any kind of person, we have to be seen to be a particular kind of person, by other people.

1 Reply

@existential potential,

Quote:

However, inasmuch as the self is dependent upon other people, then in some sense you are a "complete and utter arsehole"- because that is how that person thinks of you. That person may be wrong, but you may have done something that means that you deserve the title of "complete and utter arsehole".

And if it was a paranoid schizophrenic that told you that?

Quote:

Nevertheless, is change simply just the case of changing our attitudes and beliefs?

Change occurs to our automatic programs. Our attitudes and beliefs are automatic programs.

Quote:

Of course, we can change without people being aware of that change, but there is a sense in which in order to be any kind of person, we have to be seen to be a particular kind of person, by other people.

This is reversed from the 'true' order of things. In order to be any kind of person, we need to become that king of person, after which the kind of person we have become will be seen by others. This takes responsibility for creating who you are, while the other perspective sees us as unable to control our own destiny.

Personal power comes from realising that we are who we create ourselves to be, not who others create us to be (and us therefore taking responsibility for that creation). After we are responsible for creating who we are, we realise that, as we are social creatures, we can also create (from who we are) our interactions with other people.

In the end, in all things, we have two options - create or react.

What others see us to be is a combination of how they created themselves to be, coupled with their interaction with how we created ourselves to be, and intermixed with the information they have available at the time about both the results and the intentions...the result is the perspective they gain of you. That perspective is imperfect and flawed on multiple levels. It's one reason why it can never truly be 'you'.

1 Reply

@existential potential,

existential potential wrote:

the only theory I have studied is a sociological theory of self developed by Cooley. Cooley says that our notion of "ourselves" is derived from the perceptions of others, in how we believe the other sees us. so we imagine the image others have of us, and we imagine the judgement that they make of us, or the image of us. so in order for us to have any notion of self, we must "imagine imaginations".

in this case, the "self" isn't anything over and above our own self-image, and what we believe others make of us. this means also that the self is entirely changeable, because we can just make new friends, and have a new "self".

what of the self being more about introspection , than what matters what others think , of your self ?

this is important

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
However, inasmuch as the self is dependent upon other people, then in some sense you are a "complete and utter arsehole"- because that is how that person thinks of you. That person may be wrong, but you may have done something that means that you deserve the title of "complete and utter arsehole".
And if it was a paranoid schizophrenic that told you that?

Quote:
Nevertheless, is change simply just the case of changing our attitudes and beliefs?
Change occurs to our automatic programs. Our attitudes and beliefs are automatic programs.

Quote:
Of course, we can change without people being aware of that change, but there is a sense in which in order to be any kind of person, we have to be seen to be a particular kind of person, by other people.
This is reversed from the 'true' order of things. In order to be any kind of person, we need to become that king of person, after which the kind of person we have become will be seen by others. This takes responsibility for creating who you are, while the other perspective sees us as unable to control our own destiny.

Personal power comes from realising that we are who we create ourselves to be, not who others create us to be (and us therefore taking responsibility for that creation). After we are responsible for creating who we are, we realise that, as we are social creatures, we can also create (from who we are) our interactions with other people.

Quote:

In the end, in all things, we have two options - create or react.

and question

Quote:

What others see us to be is a combination of how they created themselves to be, coupled with their interaction with how we created ourselves to be, and intermixed with the information they have available at the time about both the results and the intentions...the result is the perspective they gain of you. That perspective is imperfect and flawed on multiple levels. It's one reason why it can never truly be 'you'.

true

0 Replies

What is the nature of the self?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know