Reply
Fri 29 Jun, 2012 10:16 am
Am I anything more than what I do, as far as everyone else is concerned? Can other people do anything more than merely comment or describe what I am either currently doing, or have done in the past?
What is the real essence of the 'person' to whom we claim to make 'emotional connections' with? His/her own describing/comment making 'mechanism'? What is it that one 'uses' to comment or describe about someone else?
What are your thoughts on this as I find it to be pretty interesting.
Take this for an example: Let's say I run into someone I 'know', or rather, have had encounters with at an earlier date(this is a whole other discussion but I'm using it for this posts' sake) and we of course instinctually feel the need to 'fill the air' so we have a discussion.
Now, our discussion will invariable include either something which I have done(or am doing), they have done(or am doing), or something which 'we' have done together(or are currently doing). Even if we were to reference some other event which has been witnessed, we cannot go outside of the realm of our own describing of the 'witnessing'.
My 'problem' here is, what is the true essence of the people that we claim to know, love, hate, care about, don't care about etc. etc. if all they can do is describe things we already know or reference things to us which we know very little about and can only speculate on?
What do we mean when we speak about a specific 'person', and do they exist outside of the ability only to comment or describe as mentioned above?
Do 'I' only exist through the eyes of everyone else? Does my very existence depend on those 'reminders' which I am given by the commenting or describing of others? That, 'I', is only a blurry sort of consciousness mechanism which is constituted only by the concept of 'others' and their describing?
I hope someone will take the time to read this, I don't find it to be all that long, there is actually a lot more I could have put but decided not to.
This is something I find to be particularly interesting and could lead to a good discussion.
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:Do 'I' only exist through the eyes of everyone else? Does my very existence depend on those 'reminders' which I am given by the commenting or describing of others? That, 'I', is only a blurry sort of consciousness mechanism which is constituted only by the concept of 'others' and their describing?
For starters "I" is something distinct of "he" or "she" or "they"...so no, you are not the product of a social construction, if not by considering, which you might, yourself as a collective, once "self" and identity is a continued process always evolving...indeed "you" is subjected to the feed back from the community and what "you" come to learn on how others regard "him" referring to what "you" are, may influence his, "you" self image, but that doesn't make "you" a social construction either, since "they" is no clearer then "you"...although "you" or the "I" obviously not being able to justify themselves through themselves, must therefore be the result of something else and justified in and through something else...the whole problem of
mechanics and parts still exists and the whole problem of a "world" still seems valid to inquire on about...
@Fil Albuquerque,
...well if you instead meant that the concept of "I" is socially debated rather then constructed I agree, you take what you can from it...whether such debate is justified, in each of us having a need to which the ascribed "I" refers to something singular, as an I taking decisions on its own, I disagree...while I acknowledge a system in the "I" and even awareness the processing of decision making as I see it is more of a
natural flow a delayed response or reaction then a decision making as a choice...or better choice is more of a sensation then something on its own right...there is coherence between awareness and the processes or reactions of your system to other patterns and systems...but that doesn't make the feeling of a choice any more choosing...
@Fil Albuquerque,
...in all honesty and fairness I recognize that such system is capable of being aware of the computing of several paths to take action as it indeed models or maps theoretical frames of work that almost seem to imply a decision making...but there's no variance on how such decision is always decided, no degrees of freedom...invariably the system computes for the best course of action given present information and understanding in relation to a given priority goal...even if ironically that goal is at times to make a case for free will...in which case the course of action emerging as an apparent choice seems not to be the best for the immediately previous prior goal...
@Fil Albuquerque,
I guess what I am saying bottom line, is that there is no "I" if there is no free will...only process.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace