The Problem of Self

Forums: Philosophy, Identity
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It seems that some of us are always not satisfied with our selves. It seems like some of us always look at ourselves and feel empty and we find ourselves wanting to fill the gap by trying to put ourselves more out there. But what have we actually accomplished in doing this?
The want of wealth, power, more wants all come to one basic dread. We are trying to fill this emptiness we feel inside us, but is it really possible to do such? Is it reasonable or is it just the neverending denial of one who can not see it as it is, and one who is always trying to create something that cannot be created since there is nothing to begin with?

I may sound like a Buddhist here, and I'm sorry if I'm not being clear, but basically what I'm saying here is not that we are non-existent but this thing that we are so hyped up about, this thing that we really want to make solid is not real. We are already a something, why are we never satisfied with what we are and have to resort to self-absorption?

I deny egoism. I deny Randian Objectivism, and I'll post why if I can on my next post. It's getting late.

Plese do reply. Smile

Thanx.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 14,107 • Replies: 279

No top replies

the human desire is insatiable. that is is the reason. when the needs gets to ends, ends gets to needs. it is toomuch for us desire that that end meets end.

this is the reason for the civilisation to grow, science to develop. if there is not insatiable desire, we might still be adams and eve.

there are persons who are saints who claim that they have left their desire and seek only god or the freedom from ego and soul. but still that is also an desire. this desire is like the shadow, though it appears to be not there in the dark, it will emerge immdeiatly when the light appears. similarly, though they claim to leave all desire, leaving desire itself a desire.

hope i have not confused u.

dream to desire, desire to dream

Regards

Karty Iyer

0 Replies

My thoughts are that it is natural to question ones existance and purpose, but it is ultimately useless. The wealthiest man has desires, the man that gets the most women has desires; There is no such thing as complete satisfaction. It is human nature to never be satisfied. That is why we thrive. The pursuit of complete satisfaction can only lead you to misery because you cannot achieve it. The stuggle is what humanity is about; It is what defines us.

0 Replies

Do you deny egoism, Ray? What do you mean by that? That you have no selfish motives ever, or that you simply deny them when they occur? If it is the latter I have something to say besides congratulations. To resist an urge you have can in many cases be dangerous. It is like the alcoholic who in giving up beer becomes consumed by the task of not being an alcoholic, and so he will never recover. He just keeps going to AA meetings, but the alcohol is still in charge of his life...

What I'm saying is that to deny your true feelings is a certain path to misery. So wallow in your ego, let it suck you in. It can be hard, but then you'll notice that your ego cannot destroy you. It can only destroy itself, because it is selfdestructive, and when it does you will no longer be a just a man. You will be worthy of the title Human being.

Yea you sounded like a buddhist, but so do I. But it's just life-experience talking, and that is the core of buddhism. Find your Self by forsaking your ego

0 Replies

While we are ever-striving organisms, there are ways to be content within that paradigm. You can see that striving as a worthy goal, and be un-perturbed about it, and you can see every decision you make as something that you couldn't have done differently, because you did what you could with the knowledge you had, and you tried your hardest to make the right choice. Nobody consciously makes stupid decisions, we just react, and don't recognize that fact later. Once you see yourself for who you truly are, you're free to define and change however you want, growing in an endless circle...until death, that is. Then, either way, you're either perfect or damned, or just nonexistent.

0 Replies

There seem to be two paths which follow from the observation of the "futility of ego".

One is that "ego" is only one "lower level" of consciousness which can, with effort be transcended with "the individual" remaining extant. (see Gurdjieff)

The second is that "self" is seen as pragmatic but illusory device which is thrust upon consciousness during the process of socialization. The resolution of this is to envisage "consciousness" as collective, and generative of all we call "reality". In this case "the individual" becomes dissipated. (see Krishnamurti or Capra for example)

It may that pursuit of the first path leads to acceptance of the second which has the advantage (?) of "coping with death" without evoking "heaven".

0 Replies

Sounds to me, Ray, as though you used the word "we" in your introduction...where the correct word should have been "I."

I simply do not share some of the qualities you mentioned...and I know many people who don't either.

0 Replies

Frank will no doubt be familiar with this rejoinder to his comment....not only does "we" imply a common experience for those who have delved into self observation, but it also implies multiple "selves" (small "s")within a particular consciousness. The first path outlined above is the attempt to establish a "Self" (capital "S").

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

There seem to be two paths which follow from the observation of the "futility of ego".

One is that "ego" is only one "lower level" of consciousness which can, with effort be transcended with "the individual" remaining extant. (see Gurdjieff)

The second is that "self" is seen as pragmatic but illusiary device which is thrust upon consciousness during the process of socialization. The resolution of this is to envisage "consciousness" as collective, and generative of all we call "reality". In this case "the individual" becomes dissipated. (see Krishnamurti or Capra for example)

It may that pursuit of the first path leads to acceptance of the second which has the advantage (?) of "coping with death" without evoking "heaven".

well put, fresco.....(just finished watching the oxford debate on bush on our c-span tv station.)

i was refering to meister eckhert and the "going past God to get to God" as the process by which releasing God as a personification leads to releasing of self. since you remove God as a personification, no personification is reflected.

probably krishnamurti said it too.

0 Replies

Kuvasz (and all)

......may like to try this.

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/K/ObsWoMe.html

0 Replies

When you look to yourself you will become lonely. When you look to others you will be let down. When you look to God you will never be let down and you will never be alone.

0 Replies

Sound logic.

0 Replies

Unfortunately "logic", which is only one aspect of "meaning", tends to reify the "self" (vis a vis an external personified deity).

0 Replies

More like the "super" self.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Frank will no doubt be familiar with this rejoinder to his comment....not only does "we" imply a common experience for those who have delved into self observation, but it also implies multiple "selves" (small "s")within a particular consciousness. The first path outlined above is the attempt to establish a "Self" (capital "S").

I understand.

But I prefer to avoid belief systems...whether written "belief system" or "Belief System."...and whether acknowledged as a belief system or not.

0 Replies

Rex

You wrote:

RexRed wrote:

When you look to yourself you will become lonely. When you look to others you will be let down. When you look to God you will never be let down and you will never be alone.

And then immediately posted:

Quote:

Sound logic.

In a way, you are correct...it is a form of sound logic.

But it would have been just as "sound logic" if you had written...

..."...When you look to Santa Claus you will never be let down..."

0 Replies

Frank,

If you care to read the link I gave above you might reconsider your claim that we are advocating "belief systems".

Quote from K

"Now the question is: can the mind be free of this egocentric activity? Right? That is really the question, not whether it is so or not. Which means can the mind stand alone, uninfluenced? Alone, being alone does not mean isolation. Sir, look: when one rejects completely all the absurdities of nationality, the absurdities of propaganda, of religious propaganda, rejects conclusions of any kind, actually, not theoretically, completely put aside, has understood very deeply the question of pleasure and fear, and division--the `me' and the `not me'--is there any form of the self at all?["

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Frank,

If you care to read the link I gave above you might reconsider your claim that we are advocating "belief systems".

Quote from K

"Now the question is: can the mind be free of this egocentric activity? Right? That is really the question, not whether it is so or not. Which means can the mind stand alone, uninfluenced? Alone, being alone does not mean isolation. Sir, look: when one rejects completely all the absurdities of nationality, the absurdities of propaganda, of religious propaganda, rejects conclusions of any kind, actually, not theoretically, completely put aside, has understood very deeply the question of pleasure and fear, and division--the `me' and the `not me'--is there any form of the self at all?["

as with the earlier coment about 'logic" reifying "self" since we usually use analog logic, where A is not B isolates A and B.

we are moving towards the "perennial philosophy" of Leibniz, "that metaphysic that recognizes a divine reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds" (Huxley) when we reject the isolation of A or B....going past self to get to SELF.

0 Replies

one eventually realizes (if one searches deeply, and exhaustively into the nature of existence), that "we are all in this together"; that the 'self' must serve the 'we' if there is to be an "us" (a successful human species).

['life' is a 'team sport'!]

0 Replies

The Problem of Self

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know