/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6240565]

what is the self?

[Anonymous No.6240590]

merely a construct, comrade.

[Anonymous No.6240591]

Something apart from the Not-Self :^)

[Anonymous No.6240595]

The product of the union of mind and matter.

[Anonymous No.6240612]

>>6240595
what does matter have to do with self, if there is a mind?

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.6240635]

>>6240565
thats a complete fail of the political test if I've ever seen one
clearly 13

Anyways the self is a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.

[Anonymous No.6240653]

>>6240565
The Will is the Self

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.6240672]

>>6240565

THE SELF IS THE ASPECT OF CONSCIOUSNESS THAT ASKS THAT QUESTION —THE EGO.

http://ryzhknd.tumblr.com/pol

http://ryzhknd.tumblr.com/psy

[Anonymous No.6240750]

The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.

[Anonymous No.6240762]

>>6240612
Without matter, there wouldn't be the illusion that the self is essential to the mind.

[Anonymous No.6240861]

>>6240565
The self is an amalgamation of all concepts, events and, in essence, perceptions that a person has acquired over his life--these perceptions ultimately inform his volitions rather than an inherent entity. Essentially, there is no self, rather a series of ideas acting on incoming ideas and shaping what ideas that person will encounter.

[Anonymous No.6240885]

Four kinds of assumption, none of which corroborate any of the others to the point of presumption. Define "what" and "is" and we can start from there.

[Anonymous No.6240922]

An abstraction over a bunch of connected physical processes which give the illusion of being coherent and temporally persistent.

[Anonymous No.6240980]

an illusion

[Anonymous No.6240993]

>>6240672
>tripfag
Yeah, you ought to be the one to talk about ego.

[Anonymous No.6240994]

>>6240885

uwotm8

[Anonymous No.6241024]

>>6240565
A concept that predetermined collisions between particles has given rise to, and that only exists as the continued predetermined collision of particles inside a predetermined amalgamation of particles we call a brain

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.6241031]

>>6240993

EXPLAIN YOUR RATIONALE.

[Anonymous No.6241049]

your brain creates an image of the outside world in order to compute actions. this image includes itself. so the brain defines itself reflexively but projecting onto itself a representation of itself, and so on in recursion. your awareness is a product of this recursive loop where the mind renders itself at sequential temporal points, and reflects continuously back on previous ones.

[Anonymous No.6241059]

>>6241031
>EXPLAIN YOUR RATIONALE
Case in point, both pretentious and bossily entitled. Have a good evening.

[Anonymous No.6241069]

i'm trying to take the politcal compass test... one thing I can't quite figure out about the questions...

for example,

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

should answer by what I would prefer, or literally, i.e. 'it should primarily serve...' ... technically, it SHOULD do nothing, it's completely arbitrary. the questions are all worded so that i could answer them multiple ways and be honest with myself.

[Anonymous No.6241084]

>>6241069
i think you should answer with what you think would be the most efficient

[Anonymous No.6241093]

>>6240591

actually, the self is the other.

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.6241094]

>>6241059
>HAVING AN EGO NECESSARILY ENTAILS PRETENTIOUSNESS, AND ENTITLEMENT.

I DO NOT THINK THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE EGO IS.

[Anonymous No.6241131]

>>6240635
christ, what are some original opinions of yours? do you even have any?

[Anonymous No.6241133]

>>6241049

Sir, are you Ray Kurzweil?

[Anonymous No.6241143]

>>6241049

what a load of bullshit
please demonstrate how any of this is true

[Anonymous No.6241170]

>>6241049
Why do science plebs insist on using comp sci terms to describe mental events?

[Anonymous No.6241201]

>>6240565
an intricate operation

[Anonymous No.6241248]

>>6240565
an emergent property of a robust and complex system of electrical pulses which is capable of self-reference

[Anonymous No.6241257]

>>6240565
I think your question begs to answer what constitutes "is" first OP..

(the notion of the self follows from an existentialism after all)

[Anonymous No.6241266]

>>6241248
>What is the self?
>Replies by referring to self-reference

[Anonymous No.6241274]

>>6241257
The question of Being is what you lead up to, you don't just start at the highest Sephirot

[Anonymous No.6241303]

>>6241266
>not understanding self-reference as a mathematical relationship

not him

[Anonymous No.6241314]

>>6241303
The subject is in the definition, so the definition is flawed.

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.6241328]

>>6241314

WITHOUT THE SUBJECT THERE IS NO DEFINITION AT ALL.

[Anonymous No.6241342]

>>6241170
>mfw reality is a self-generated function and all structures evolved within it are patterned in its image

[Anonymous No.6241377]

God

[Anonymous No.6241444]

>>6240565
Don't over think things, it's just you.

[Anonymous No.6241479]

Me.

[Anonymous No.6241498]

>>6240635
>I cannot be classified by any test, I am an individual special snowflake

[Anonymous No.6241512]

>>6240565
A miserable pile of secrets!

[Anonymous No.6241514]

>>6241328
But if I define 'red' as 'the color I see when I look at a red thing,' how is my mistake different from what that other anon did with his definition? He could have said 'reflexive,' it would have been clearer.
>>6241377
I don't think that's Spinoza's position.

[Anonymous No.6241675]

>>6240635
Youre such a fuck, honestly

[Anonymous No.6241947]

>>6240565
A commodity to the elite, unless he proves himself otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6241953]

>>6241947

>rails against the elite
>is an authoritarian centrist

kekkins

[Anonymous No.6241963]

>>6241953
>rails against the elite
Where did I imply this?

[Anonymous No.6242031]

>>6241479
>implying Obama is a leftist

[Anonymous No.6242052]

>>6240565

Unknowable in earthly life.

- K

[Anonymous No.6242056]

>>6241479
>Changing your mind so much over a politician

Have you ever considered, you know, thinking for yourself?

[Anonymous No.6242075]

>>6240565
it's a spook
>protip: so is class warfare

[Anonymous No.6242081]

>>6241479
>i am brain dead

[Anonymous No.6242108]

>>6241514

Because red is a subjective experience, it doesn't exist outside our perception. You could describe red as light with a wavelength of 655 nm I suppose but that still doesn't tell you WHAT red is. The essence of things can only be referenced not given directly.

[Anonymous No.6242110]

>>6241514
Doesn't he basically says, in the Ethica, that consciousness is basically God thinking about God as an object?

[Anonymous No.6242121]

>>6242075
Claiming class warfare is a spook, when even hardcore capitalists affirm it.

quote by warren buffet:
"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."

[Anonymous No.6242131]

>>6242052
i didn't understand a word of that

[Anonymous No.6242138]

>>6242108
A definition is a statement of essence. Red has a definition, though the experience of red is purely experiential.
>>6242110
He uses psychological terms in a very technical way. He equates God with mind, not with self.

[Anonymous No.6242139]

>>6241479

>Obama didn't make him more of a leftist

brainless scud

[Anonymous No.6242144]

>>6242121
>most people say its real so it's not a spook

[Anonymous No.6242178]

>>6242144
>I'm the only intelligent human out there, only sheeple would state a fact a majority of humanity is able to see..

[Anonymous No.6242197]

>>6242138

>He equates God with mind, not with self.

It's true that for Spinoza, each individual human self is within god/nature, not equated with god/nature. But to say that "he equates god with mind" is ambiguous. It's better to say the he equates god/nature with:

a - the attribute of infinite thought, which includes within it all individual thinking things (as modes of that attribute)
b - the attribute of infinite extension, which includes within it all individual extended things (as modes of that attribute)
c - an infinity of other attributes that humans have no knowledge of.

>>6242110

> consciousness is basically God thinking about God as an object?

Basically, but that's from the viewpoint of infinite intellect, of which each individual human mind/self is only a small finite fragment.

[Anonymous No.6242246]

A fictional boundary between the mind and the matter.

[Anonymous No.6242253]

>>6242178
you
>95% of the earth is religious
>I guess religion isn't a spook!

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6242269]

>>6241479
Since his election you've been getting an earful of rightwing "libertarian" critics.
Congrats, you're easily swayed by propaganda pushes.

[Anonymous No.6242305]

>>6242121
That's pure fucking third order simulacra at best.

[Anonymous No.6242310]

>>6242131

What follows is a slight adaptation of something I wrote in a Kant thread a while back. tl;dr - if your self is the ship of theseus, then its identity is preserved because it maintains its *form* of ship-ness, even if all of its wooden material is constantly being replaced.

Kant agreed with Hume that when we examine the inner sense data of our minds - when we go through our memories and emotions and desires and all of our other personality traits - there is no material "self" that is common to all of our own experiences. There is only a parade of ever-changing perceptions, and we can discover no single perception of a "me" that is identical across our lifetime. Hume was again left in rational skepticism, this time about the existence of personal identity, whereas Kant turned to his own thesis about the mind's spontaneous activity: the categories of the understanding function with regularity in their ordering of the raw data (AKA the matter, content) of sensation, so that the way in which perceptions are connected remains identical across time, even though the particular contents of those perceptions might always vary from one moment to the next. Thus personal identity is *formal* rather than material, and this unified thinking self that you attribute all of your experiences to (even your inner experiences of remembering your past, feeling emotions, etc.) is called the transcendental unity of apperception. This is the keystone of Kant's first critique, and he describes it as such.

[Anonymous No.6242318]

>>6241248
its analogies on different meta levels man.

no one on lit gets GED

[Anonymous No.6242389]

>>6242310
Gosh, all that European official narrative must be exhausting.

[Anonymous No.6242412]

>>6242389
Gosh, all that Buddhist meditation has sure solved social ills and helped Southeast Asia colonize the New World.
On, wait.

[normcore jesus No.6242415]

>>6242389

it's p funny, i find

though in wittgenstein's case, it's a big fat shame that he never caught onto dharma

[Anonymous No.6242425]

>>6242389

You're right - the size and intricacy of the buddhist canon isn't nearly as daunting.

[Anonymous No.6242431]

>>6242412
China calls itself the Empire of the Middle. Even the sign they use to say "China" is a black bar in the center of a ring.
I don't think they wanted to colonize. They didn't feel the need to.
As Napoleon said: "When China will wake up, the world will shake".
you may now call me a faggot and a pleb.

[Anonymous No.6242454]

>>6242425
Why would it ever need to be?

[Anonymous No.6242483]

>>6240565
You need more authority m8

[Anonymous No.6242489]

>>6242483

pig disgusting

[Anonymous No.6242495]

>>6242431
Is China in southeast Asia?

[Anonymous No.6242496]

>>6242454

Because, like with any worldview, the basic motivating ideas of buddhism are susceptible to reinterpretation and adaptation across different times and places. This results in parallel traditions and technical vocabularies, "narrative(s)" of Buddhism's own.

Or is this historically false?

[Anonymous No.6242608]

This is me after /int/, /pol/, and /lit/

[Anonymous No.6242638]

>>6242496
On the world or in it?

[Anonymous No.6242728]

>>6242638

Please explain what that question means.

[Anonymous No.6242738]

>>6242608

>this is how much other people's opinions shape my own

you are a stupid faggot

[Anonymous No.6242789]

>>6242197
Thanks mate, you made it clearer. Props!

[Anonymous No.6242905]

>>6240565
I didn't know I was a centrist

[Anonymous No.6242989]

>answering the question "The freer the market, the freer the people." with Agree or Strongly agree

[Anonymous No.6242993]

ayy lmao

[Anonymous No.6242995]

The biological spook.

[Anonymous No.6243008]

>>6242989
It's obviously a very complex question, some people define freedom quite differently than others.

[Anonymous No.6243017]

Self is all the perceptions, perception is a truth and "truth" is an undefined concept, primitive notion. You can also go back, any truth is a perception, all the perceptions are part of the self.

[Anonymous No.6243030]

>>6242738
How do you form your thoughts and ideas if not by the influence of others?

[Anonymous No.6243031]

>>6242989
buh arf

[Anonymous No.6243037]

>>6242993
awful, simply awful old chap!

[Anonymous No.6243042]

>>6243030
There is plenty of ideas that can come from the experience with non-human things. Like Newton's Laws.

[Anonymous No.6244355]

an imputation that serves as a tool, if thought to be existing beyond that, a source of misery

[Anonymous No.6244427]

But a thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpaRouocBes

[Anonymous No.6244970]

>>6242318
except you, lone genius :^)