/lit/ - Literature

>>23006859
This is trivial if we remember that almost no physical object has a "substantial and enduring" existence. A diamond or a mountain are ultimately as fleeting and non-substantial as a flowing river or a flame.

>>23006919
>this is trivial
That’s the peak of philosophy is discovering the illusory nature of self. From there everything gets discovered to be a lie. There’s no closer way to reality then the discovery of that fact.

>>23006859
If only Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, Jung and Heidegger didn't exist, then this truly WOULD have refuted the self.

Poor Enlightenment individuals, tormented by ideas, never even knew themselves because themselves were only outer phenomena to be studied! Many such cases!! SAD!!!

>>23006948
Once again, this is a false dychotomy of either enduring or illusory. If something is fleeting, it does not mean that it's illusory. A flowing river is fleeting, and yet it does exist.

Good thread

>>23006964
Thoughts/the self have no substance or reality you can’t feel, touch it, see it. They are fleeting and insubstantial. The river you can touch, see, there’s a difference, it does exist just not your experience of the river is real

>>23006954
None of them said it was illusory

>>23006983
Nope, you cannot touch a river. You can touch water in a river, not a river itself. Both a mind and a river are dynamic structures, or processes, and in this sense one must either accept that both of them exist, or than neither the river nor the mind do not exist - but, in the latter case, nothing, not even atoms would exist, and so the word "to exist" would lose all meaning.

>>23006859
>you vill be selfless
>you vill own nothing
>you vill be happy

>>23007014
Why you want that cancer around anyways? It’s just preventing you from being yourself. It ruins your life, it makes you miserable. There’s no free will at all with it.

>>23007004
Yea, and?

>>23006983
>>23007013
Why are you confusing the mind and its thoughts (experience) with the self (experiencer)? Are NPCs unironically real after all?

>>23007077
Both are unreal, the “I” (experiencer) and the thoughts (experience) both have no substance or reality what did I say that you disagree with? Both are fake and gay

>>23007084
You're saying nothing at all, what could I disagree with? Go bash your brainless head against a wall until one of them cracks, neither are real anyway.

>>23007095
Nah that’s real and would cause serious harm, the experience in your head of it is not real though

>>23007140
>myself and my experience are not real
>but the world which I know only through my experience is real
You reversed solipsism, and now it's twice as retarded. Good job.

>>23006859
>>23006859
Anyone who's read anything about Buddhism already knows this

>>23007183
>myself and my experience are not real
Correct, there’s no framework of the experience and there’s no experiencer in reality. Subject/object relation to the world is gone if one makes it there. I’m not denying that bashing your head against a wall wouldn’t have untidy consequences. Why would I do that? Would be a mess. Waste of time. There’s a world/reality without the psychological structure in the way. It’s real.

>>23007187
Yeah but it makes /lit/ confused when a white guy says it since they like western philosophy so much

>>23006859
>David Hume knew the highest truth
Hume would have disagreed with this because there's no a priori way to know if the truth you know is the highest truth.

>>23007211
Can you prove the material world is ontologically real? I'm gonna sit right here and listen really intently. *puts a mannequin in his chair, jumps out the window and sprints off*

>>23006859
Inb4 someone posts the hume appearing in someone's dreams shitpost

The only truly enduring thing which could be said to be the "I" or self is the awareness which experiences all other phenomena. There is no way to prove whether the phenomena which make up the experience of thinking a thought are actually the result of a truly existent "I" actively thinking or if the awareness is simply passively experiencing a collection of phenomena which happen to give rise to the illusion of thinking.

>>23006859
Hume had a flawed understanding of self and he makes the amateur mistake of thinking that the self doesn’t exist simply because it doesn’t become its own object of experience. In truth, the self is always known and self-evident but this takes place as the very light of awareness which reveals objective content while remaining itself unchanging. Hume even admits this implicitly and BTFO’d himself when he writes “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself” since he is still acknowledging the presence of his self even in the midst of his search for the self-as-objective-content.

>>23006948
>That’s the peak of philosophy is discovering the illusory nature of Self
That’s just “Baby’s first time reading about Buddhism”, then as you read more and grow wiser you realize that by self the Buddhists really mean ego and that while the ego may be illusory the self most certainly isn’t.

>>23006954
Nietzsche is in agreement with Hume. He rejects the I in Beyond Good and Evil. Will to power doesn't require an I because it simply describes a process.

it's insane how accurate he was with everything. after a century of highest technology and neuroscience there are still masses of "intellectuals" who believe mystic bullshit Hume negated 300 years ago.

>>23008021
>”after a century of highest technology and neuroscience there are still masses of "intellectuals" who believe mystic bullshit Hume negated 300 years ago.”

Why does self have to be unchanging? I mean there's no unchanging entity in the universe. There's no where in the definition of self that requires it as a necessary condition to be unchanging. And you might ask whether 10 yr old you and 30 yr old you are similar and you might be right to assume their sameness on the premise that everything else is similar to itself at some point in time.

>>23006859
>be David Hume
>deny that any fixed sense of self exists
>say our identity changes all the time
>one night someone breaks into my house
>they steal all my valuables
>eventually I track them down to enact revenge
>but the “person” who stole my valuables no longer exists, because no fixed identity exists
>walk home sadly, knowing I’ve been cucked and can never know who robbed me

>>23008853
Filtered

>>23008853
but the good news is that they were never really your properties anyway!

Define the self because I do feel like everyone does have a core personality and being that extends out and influences pretty much everything else they experience. How one reacts to one thing or another.

>>23007541
I am not a philosopher but isn't he saying there is no "self" because it's ever-changing? At any given moment you are nothing more than your perceptions, and these perceptions change with time. So, no two perceptions at different moments are similar, therefore what is self?

>>23007541
>he makes the amateur mistake of thinking that the self doesn’t exist simply because it doesn’t become its own object of experience.
It is its own object of experience that you’re unfortunately stuck with and trapped in.

>>23008893
You are also your memories, so this isn't remotely accurate.

>>23008862
It’s a prison you’re stuck with, it makes impossible for you to have any sort of free will, it is “you” or who you think yourself to be, but you have no control over the processes involved with it, only the illusion that there’s control or a center there known as “I” which mimics the body mistakenly. We’re doomed. Does that help?

>>23008907
>You are also your memories
Proof? I would argue that that our memories are nothing more than the information that induces perceptions. I won't deny that a lot more intimate but how they any different than say, being influenced by the information from reading a book.

>>23008931
You don't need to have control for there to be a you or I. Where does this naive idealistic notion of I or you come from? You are you because you are not anyone or anything else. Its that simple. These retarded religious about self are not necessary or even sufficient to explain self. You are the sum total of your experiences at any moment in time as relating to every other entity that changes with time. You don't need to have free will or any control for there to be a self.

>>23008948
How then did you acquire that information other than storing those perceptions? The fact that we can communicate in english and not chinese proves that we have a shared memory of learning english.

>>23008952
>You don't need to have control for there to be a you or I.
Gotcha, so there is no you or I then. Just a false you and I inside that has fooled us into thinking is really us! Yes.
>You are the sum total of your experiences at any moment in time as relating to every other entity that changes with time. You don't need to have free will or any control for there to be a self.
Why not? How come?

>>23008963
Sure, we have the ability to access "our memories(information)", but is there anything that makes them uniquely ours, that isn't our perception of it?

>>23008993
There is no false you lmao. How can you be fooled if you weren't you? How can a false YOU fool YOU?

>>23008995
WE have the ability, you have your ability and I have mine. I cannot access your memories and you can' access mine.

>>23009004
There’s a difference between myself and the “I”. Myself is without the “I” and its contents that were embedded in me, this split from the world around me is not real. Myself is free of this. And inshallah I want to be free of if

>>23009004
>>23009011
You are NOT the mind

>>23006919
Didn’t Heraclitus say this eons before Hume did?

>>23009013
I never said we were the mind. How can the mind reconcile memories of a body if it doesn't have access to a body, or the stimuli that comes with the body?

>>23008931
Still a little vague but I don’t agree with this because perception is still very important. How you decide to approach and view the world can be really powerful.

so hume rediscovered what buddha taught 2000 years before him?

>>23006859
Kant's Critique is a surpassing of Hume's work, on purpose.

>>23006954
Kierkegaard's notion of the self is compatible with this definition of the self. In fact, Kierkegaard argues in this vein. He merely extends the idea further and with less words.

>>23009125
Get lost, larper. The pseudery of Buddhism has nothing on the Western tradition.

>>23009153
that's the opposite westerners are infatuated with the jewish logocentrism and can't only spout out tripe

>>23009203
Are the westerners in the room with us?

>>23008021
The masses don't know how to think. They only ever follow tradition. You're absolutely correct — the notion of an eternal soul, and that of eternal consciousness, has been thoroughly refuted — but no one thinks, so no one understands how.

>>23007187
Sounds the same but it’s not

>>23009661
>the notion of an eternal soul, and that of eternal consciousness, has been thoroughly refuted
Complete nonsense, it has never been refuted.

>>23009125
Life denying cult posing as a philosophical system cultivated solely to force the lower castes to cope with living in hell on Earth rather than attempt to ever change the status quo. There's a reason the only westerners who fall for it are mentally ill ones, attempting to cope with suffering by denying life itself.

>>23007183
>You reversed solipsism, and now it's twice as retarded. Good job.
my sides

>>23008862
The idea is that the self changes over time, so you're not actually continuously the same person. Like how over the course of 7 years, all the cells in your body are replaced. Ship of Theseus shit.

>>23006859
The logical conclusion of all of this is that there is no reason to distinguish between “your” consciousness and “my” consciousness. We are all the same consciousness. Experiences can’t belong to one self and not other, since there is no self at all. Every single conscious experience belongs to the universe, it is all you. But people will not grasp this fact for thousands of years. So unnecessary suffering will continue.

>>23006859
>What is genetics
>what are innate character traits
Yeah no Hume was wrong. So were you. But im not surprised by that :^)

>>23011322
filtered

>>23011351
>cope response instead of an argument addressing my fundamental points
I win. I always win. This place is filled with pushovers and I don't belong here :^)

>>23011622
Not him but you don’t have an argument. If you are your genetics, then what if I clone you? Or what if I change just one of your genes? It’s not clear what exactly “you” are.

>>23011636
>If you are your genetics, then what if I clone you? Or what if I change just one of your genes? It’s not clear what exactly “you” are.
Genetics are only a factor. The second a clone of me appears and experiences new things, he will be a new person but the core, my wants and dislikes stay the same. Change my genes but leave my experiences then I'll remain the same but gradually gravitate towards a worldview concurrent with my new genes.

But genes can be overcome and the ego confined, leaving the the rational intellectual intuition to always guide you in the right way.
:^)

>>23006948
keep reading anon, and you will soon discover that not the illusory nature of self, but the nature of time, is the ultimate philosophical intrigue. this fact for the nature of the self derives from the question of time.

however, the only high you can reach is recognizing this as the fundamental problem in philosophy, but at the same time, you will also realize that you are unable to reach a final answer for this question, and so this is the explanation for why the shitshow will keep on going.

>>23011661
> he second a clone of me appears and experiences new things, he will be a new person but the core, my wants and dislikes stay the same
It follows that you become a new person every second since you are constantly acquiring new experiences. Suppose you were cloned in such a way that you come out of the machine not knowing if you were the original or the clone (since you both share the same past). Then the only real difference is the difference in space and time, the fact that you can only experience what your brain produces, while the other clone can only experience what his brain produces. But what if eternal recurrence is true, and this exact universe appears again trillions of years from now, and you are created again, and are reading this comment again. Would that be you?

We are all the same, because we are made out of the same stuff. The alternative is believing that a self is defined by an absolute particular composition, which is changing every second, which would mean that the self changes every second, so that the difference between you and your past self is the same as the difference between you and someone else. Either way, we are all the same.

>>23011735
>still using 'You' as a concept
My man you need to read and experience life more. Stop being trapped (and trying to trap others) in an endless maze of rhetorical arguments and philosophical conjectures. Words are just words, and they can never describe reality as it is.

>melius est dubitare de ocultis, quam litigare de incertis

>>23011766
> My man you need to read and experience life more.
>you

>>23011775
>cope response instead of an argument addressing my fundamental points
I win. I always win. This place is filled with pushovers and I don't belong here :^)

:^)

>>23011782
You’re coping because you thought that I thought “you” was a valid concept in the first place, when I was clearly trying to deconstruct it. Sit down.

>>23011799
>more cope
I already deconstructed it for you tho
Your effort was in vain and too verbose
Youre boring and insecure. Bye :^)

>>23011813
Oh I see, this is like a good cop bad cop thing, where you come off as the annoying schizo so I look better in comparison and convince others

bump

>>23010971
The self doesn't change, it unravels, like a germinating seed. It has properties which unravel in a predictable fashion over time. Humans do not spontaneously sprout wings and fly, they do predictable things over time. If you believed in determinism, this question would seem trivial.

>>23006859
>According to Hume, our sense of self is not based on a perception of an unchanging entity, but rather emerges from a bundle of perceptions and experiences. He believed that our consciousness is composed of a succession of fleeting impressions and ideas that are constantly changing. Hume famously stated, "For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and can never observe anything but the perception."
Given the nature of the case, what possible evidence could have changed Hume's mind? In short, is his theory falsifiable?

Otoh, the evidence he cites in favor of the bundle theory is not inconsistent with the existence of a substantial and enduring self.

>>23006859
>"For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and can never observe anything but the perception."
so he's retarded?
Descartes and Ibn Sina knew the answer

>>23015189
>Hume
>retarded
I hate you damn Zoomer scum so much. This board has been ruined by you pretentious fools.

>>23011622
No, he's right. You were literally filtered. You didn't even comprehend the excerpt. Try not to be dismissive. Like Heidegger said, "It is necessary to think one thought and one thought only, and that thought to its end."

>>23015209
No, you're wrong. You didn't even comprehend the point. Try not to be dismissive. Like Heidegger said, "It is necessary to think one thought and one thought only, and that thought to its end."

>>23006859
problem with Hume is relies too much on things like 'bundle' as an objective category to define all these things. Quine is better.

>>23015612
Way to prove my point, retard.

>>23006954
All of those authors (except jung) agree that the self is not something unchangeable or essential

>>23010810
Buddha,hume, heideeger, kant and many more find different ways to refute it

>>23009125
Yes and Hegel rediscovered Nagarjuna

>>23013564
That would make the self a composite of parts, which makes it not an essence, substantial or partless

>>23015724
Care to elaborate on that? i wanted to star reading Quine for some time

>>23006859
The self of substance exists. Hume is like a midwit postmodernist, because he's able to deconstruct a commonly held belief and then just ends there. The persona is relative and not real, he is right, but you have an underlying biologically hardwired personality profile influencing you, just like the fact that you are genetically a human being and will map all the relative symbols to fixed, unconscious placeholders. There isn't a continuity of persona, of consciousness even because ship of Theseus etc but your generic makeup will create all sorts of essences. The self of substance is the overlap of every possible persona your DNA could act out.

But this idea is dangerous because blind retards will stereotype people too easily. The thing evaluating the essence will need to be a highly creative, open thinker or else it's facism.

>>23016208
>you saying I'm wrong for making baseless claims about your comprehension is PROOF that I'm right!
And you have the audacity to belittle my intelligence... Shame on you

>>23008893
>I am not a philosopher but isn't he saying there is no "self" because it's ever-changing?
He doesn't give proof of it changing but just points to perceptions changing, but this is not an example of the self changing.
>At any given moment you are nothing more than your perceptions, and these perceptions change with time. So, no two perceptions at different moments are similar, therefore what is self?
The self is the immediate and self-evident awareness that is always effortlessly present and which unchangingly remains the same regardless of what perceptions are occurring. Thoughts and sensations in related to this awareness are like objects floating in space, it just indifferently and immutably remains what it is while allowing things to manifest or appear in knowledge through of its presence.

>>23008902
All that appears as an object is non-self

>>23016903
Filtered

>>23017114
>All that appears as an object is non-self
nothing appears as an object. The concept of objecthood is only applicable relative to a specification of logical structure and perceptions aren't logically structured.

>>23017192
>The concept of objecthood is only applicable relative to a specification of logical structure and perceptions aren't logically structured.
By object, I didn't mean the concept of objectivity but it was a point about experience that everything that is revealed by self-knowing awareness, including inner phenomena like thoughts and outward-directed perceptual sensations etc is experienced as revealed by that awareness and not vice versa.

There is a qualitative difference between awareness and other things that is experienced both when concepts are present but also even at a non- or -preconceptual level insofar as awareness remains present while knowing itself and revealing the thoughts and sense-perceptions etc that take place as experienced phenomena like light revealing things in the dark but awareness is never known or revealed by any other thing but is always known to itself directly (and this is the self). The thoughts and other phenomena are not self-aware and it is only through being revealed or illumined by the self-knowing awareness that they can be known at all.

>>23016679
It doesn't have to be any of that. The self is a continuation of other selfs, therefore it can't be partless. The only partless thing is being, which is a completely different concept.