waytogoal OP t1_jas54sw wrote
Reply to comment by HouseOfSteak in Glorifying the "self" is detrimental to both the individual and the larger world. It neither helps you find your true nature, nor your role in the larger world. by waytogoal
Since you edited, let me respond to your other point: cancer cells, invasive plants, and deadly plagues are exactly about a unitary "self" expanding and is behaving as if it is the most important thing (think about their genetic information). Ego is a metaphor. I think you are missing the whole point if you can't catch that.
That's why the article says "self" is unimportant (you can argue all day whether it exists, everyone has their definition). Emphasizing on the idea of "self" exactly limits your worldview.
Fishermans_Worf t1_jaszty0 wrote
>cancer cells, invasive plants, and deadly plagues are exactly about a unitary "self" expanding and is behaving as if it is the most important thing
I'm not sure how you classify those as "unitary selves".
They each strike me as a collectives of units each behaving selflessly entirely according to their nature. A cancer cell does not decide to divide. It's just random damage. A seed does not decide to land in virgin soil or in it's home environment. A plague might not even be alive—viruses aren't even living things, let alone self indulgent. That's why they're so effective.
It makes sense to me we'd each see the metaphor completely differently, coming from two fundamentally different worldviews.
You may see their collective behaviour as analogous to the actions of an individual—but I say they are better representations of a culture that does not value individuality or allow freedom of choice. Each example mindlessly consumes without conscious self interest. That's not a model of individuality, it's a model of conformity.
An individual has the capacity for destruction through self glorification, but a culture that does not value individuality cannot change. The world is change, and a unchanging culture inevitably glorifies itself in the same irrational destructive way.
In between we find a better balance. Stability and change—liberal and conservative—push and pull. The individual has a self—recognized or not. The individual is part of the collective—recognized or not.
A sense of self need not be fixed to be strong—a healthy sense of self includes the ability to recognize and guide change. It sure helps to know where you are if you want to get somewhere else.
Balance comes when we recognize and glorify both—the individual as a vital part of the collective and the collective as a group of diverse individuals with a shared purpose. The individualist and collectivist views aren't just compatible, they need to be integrated or each only half works.
waytogoal OP t1_jat4dkf wrote
"They each strike me as a collectives of units each behaving selflessly"They don't behave "selflessly", selfless means "concerned more with the needs and wishes of others". If they are selfless they would not go on to hurt and engulf others, I think you want to say "mindlessly" and may have been muddled because this discussion is being dragged into a strawman of "whether self exists" and "whether everyone is a Hitler just by recognizing the self", when all this article suggest is there is no need to glorify and give importance to it.
"Self" is broadly a coherent unit of things that have a common thought and goal. e.g., how your immune system recognizes self and non-self is by the different goals of pathogens and your body cells. That's why the 20-years-ago you seem like a stranger - because you have different thoughts and goals.
I think you have also confused the image of self (that is now owning your goals/thoughts/monologue) as your consciousness and that's why you think intelligence or responsible behavior must be born from that certain idea of self (e.g., believing that I am a moral person), when you can go the pragmatic way and be conscious with the consequence of your actions directly. That you are conscious about actions is more powerful than you are conscious about a certain idea of who you are.
Fishermans_Worf t1_jatk2jh wrote
>"They each strike me as a collectives of units each behaving selflessly"They don't behave "selflessly", selfless means "concerned more with the needs and wishes of others". If they are selfless they would not go on to hurt and engulf others, I think you want to say "mindlessly" and may have been muddled because this discussion is being dragged into a strawman of "whether self exists" and "whether everyone is a Hitler just by recognizing the self", when all this article suggest is there is no need to glorify and give importance to it.
I think we might be divided by a common vocabulary. I didn't mean mindlessly, I meant selflessly. I could have said mindlessly but I wanted to drive in the point that all things that are mindless are selfless.
"Concerned more with the needs and wishes of others" is a definition that can only only apply to things that are capable of being concerned. A cancer cell acts selflessly because it is incapable of reflecting upon its actions. It cannot be concerned with its own needs because it's incapable of forming that concern. A tidal wave is selfless—it has no sense of self.
The root definition of selflessly is "without regard to self" and that does not require a conscious choice. In the absence of a conscious mind, there is only selflessness. There is selfishness in a conscious mind—even one that exists in a pantheistic universe because there are selfish needs and selfish qualities to the conscious experience.
We can recontextualize those needs by looking at ourselves solely through the context we are part of a greater whole—but it seems intuitively harmful to deny one aspect of nature in favour of another when we can reconcile them. Why seek domination when harmony is possible?
>"Self" is broadly a coherent unit of things that have a common thought and goal. e.g., how your immune system recognizes self and non-self is by the different goals of pathogens and your body cells. That's why the 20-years-ago you seem like a stranger - because you have different thoughts and goals.
Self generally refers to the concept of self awareness. The self mediation of a thinking being that seems to exists in an external world but can only perceive that external world through an internal representation. Your immune system has no sense of self. It has no concept of concern-it only has triggers. It has no concept of goals-it has actions and limits. You might have the wrong word for what you're trying to get across.
​
>I think you have also confused the image of self (that is now owning your goals/thoughts/monologue) as your consciousness and that's why you think intelligence or responsible behavior must be born from that certain idea of self (e.g., believing that I am a moral person), when you can go the pragmatic way and be conscious with the consequence of your actions directly. That you are conscious about actions is more powerful than you are conscious about a certain idea of who you are.
I haven't, I just see them as inseparable due to the nature of how we physically work. I don't even believe we're individual beings. I'm a traditionally pantheistic Stoic and I see us as manifestations of a single universal being. My morality attempts a cosmic perspective. But we also manifest as individuals—and while I believe our actions should be guided towards selflessness—we experience a sense of self. If the universe has created individual awarenesses, each with a sense of self, it's natural and right to revel in our sense of self just as it's natural and right to revel in the reality that we are made for cooperation. Both are natural miracles.
To act correctly we must accept all that is true, and that includes our current nature. I cannot pick up a glass without knowing my body. I cannot guide my future self to act effectively without knowing my current self.
Again, I suspect we might be divided by a common vocabulary. I sort of pick up what you're saying and I don't think it's too different from what I believe-you just get there through a different context. Cheers!
waytogoal OP t1_jatsyko wrote
Fair point, might have been a vocabulary issue, also it is not easy to reply to so many people so I probably have some hasty typing mistakes.
But now I am curious, do you think the individuals inside Nazi Germany are "selfless" then? (According to some other comments, they are). I think this is where the vocab issue arises, where some commenters described group/collectives as equating "selfless". (And what is not a group?)
Also, you might have designed too many categorical buckets about what things have self-awareness/ are conscious and what things aren't. I think it is way more contentious than you think it is (heck, you don't even know whether I am actually conscious the same way as you), plus I don't think any serious biologist would claim cells have no "goal". Now a bit of rephrasing, would you agree an entity having a coherent goal/desire is the requirement to form a "self"?
Moreover, it is not about an all-or-nothing full denial or acceptance, this article is never about arguing the "self" doesn't exist at all. It is full of statements like "you ARE probably more versatile and adaptive than you think."; "The minimal useful concept of “self” is simply recognizing that one is an amazing, versatile being capable of doing great things"
To address your last part, many things are "natural", do we have the mental resources to give equal importance to all things natural? Is the current level of glorification of self "natural" (a matter of degree and extent rather than all-or-nothing)? At what level is considered not natural? e.g., Human procreation can be either natural or unnatural, it is the level of it that defines it. These are some questions worth thinking about.
Fishermans_Worf t1_jau9tv2 wrote
>But now I am curious, do you think the individuals inside Nazi Germany are "selfless" then?
Fascism is an ideology that does not respect the individual self in favour of the group. It's brutally selfish towards outsiders, and brutally selfless within.
A biologist will say a cell has a goal—but they don't mean it in the same way that a person has a goal nor do they mean it in the way an organization has a goal.
If this is applicable, translating concepts from one culture to another is incredibly difficult because so much of the context is lost. if you're putting an argument forwards, it's valuable to try and define every important term you use. Doubly so if you're translating ideas across cultures. The more central a concept is to your essay, the more of the essay I'd spend defining exactly what you're talking about.
waytogoal OP t1_jazyj03 wrote
I think I start to see where the problem might have arisen. Let's focus back into the "individuals" inside Nazis and forget about whether "Fascism" as an ideology is respecting selfs.
Hitler is a self-conscious individual who did a lot of thinkings himself and thus cannot be described as "selfless", agree? The next guy, let's name him Joe, confidently believes in Nazi ideology or the bollock from Hitler and had thought about it thoroughly. Is he selfless?...
I think the problem is that you implicitly assumed an ideology (e.g., fascism, communism) not respecting "individual rights" would eliminate the "self" in its part. (I know sociology texts made a lot subtle statements that groupist equate no self and might have subtly influenced in how we communicate)
Now, read your own statement again "It's brutally selfish towards outsiders, and brutally selfless within." and apply it to you. Your cells are brutally selfless within (the requirement of developing you, the yourself), but it might or might not be selfless towards the outside, agree?
VitriolicViolet t1_jaymc26 wrote
>That's why the 20-years-ago you seem like a stranger - because you have different thoughts and goals.
they are no stranger, why would they be?
the 'self' is merely the sum of all ones experiences, memories, environment, genes, neurons etc.
my actions and who i think i am are one and the same.
literallymetaphoric t1_jaw4kxx wrote
Your definition of selflessness is akin to collectivism. You are free to relinquish your agency, but that too is a choice made by you.
waytogoal OP t1_jat6xca wrote
More clarification to help you understand: some of you seem to have conflated that only by giving importance to a "self" can one become a thinking, responsible person (that's why you think no emphasis of self = mindless). Whereas if we focus on our actions, we "stop thinking" anymore. Caring about your actions exactly makes you think about the right thing - the consequence of your actions. As humans we always think, but we need to prioritise thinking certain things over others, we have a limited amount of mental resources.
VitriolicViolet t1_jaym4pa wrote
and for some bizarre reason you are separating the self from action.
i am my actions as 'i' am the sum of all my memories, experiences culture, genes etc.
therefore your entire position is incoherent, there is no demarcation between the self and ones actions.
scrollbreak t1_jat9vqo wrote
The other person referred to self regulating self - it seems odd to then just push the idea of self as always being having no perception of self, like cancer cells have no perception of self. Seems like the author and your idea of 'self' involves no self regulation component at all.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments