|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:31 pm
All right, so I en't got no Master's Degree in the subject, but I do have enough of a gist of the no-self view to start a discussion on it.
Have you ever had someone tell you a story about yourself that you don't remember happening? Maybe your parents tell those cute naked baby stories, or show you the cute naked baby pictures that look nothing like that mug shot you got now. Do you remember when those things happened? When that picture was taken? Probably not, unless you're some kind of machine. So here's the question I put to you: Is the person in that picture you?
The No-Self view is upheld by the tenets of the Buddhist religion and the work of the philosopher David Hume. It states very clearly that there is no enduring self, no "you" that is continual and distinct.
Picture it like this: Time is a long line, and every second of your life is a point on that line. In every point, you is a different thing. There is no soul or object that binds those moments together but cause and effect. What could there be that is constant? Research shows that it takes about seven years for the body to completely regenerate itself- all new skin cells, tissues and organs replacing the cells that have died over time. The you at fourteen is completely physically different than the you at seven. So how can you be the same person?
The main argument for this, of course, is memories. If we aren't who we were two seconds ago, how do we remember what happened? It's a good point, but at the same time, do you remember every second of your entire life? What about the seconds you've forgotten? Do you remember your life before seven years? What about when you were asleep? What are those then, if memory is what endures? You can't be the same person if you don't remember being that person.
But what does that mean? If you weren't the same person you were when you got married, or stole that car, or graduated high school... How can you call those "your" accomplishments, parts of "your" life? Is that really the case?
What is it, in your opinion, that makes Today You the same as Yesterday You? Is there anything to prove the enduring self, or are you a stanger every second of existence?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:21 pm
I'm no philosophy student or anything like that. Heck, I'm only in secondary school and mine doesn't even include philosophy as a course! But here's my view anyway.
You are not your memories. You are your soul, your character, how you naturally react to things. You are not your previous self, but you have most likely been shaped by events that happened to your previous self, even if you do not remember those events.
Does that make any sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:18 pm
 >> Only the blackest of heartsI suppose to some degree this is true - there are going to be things that change with each passing second, but there are many constants in one's life... I suppose if one loses their memories, they do become different people in a sense, but certain things tend to remain the same still... I guess I'm 50:50 - or 40:60 - or something Can feel the purest of love <<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:01 pm
Tanyeera I'm no philosophy student or anything like that. Heck, I'm only in secondary school and mine doesn't even include philosophy as a course! But here's my view anyway. You are not your memories. You are your soul, your character, how you naturally react to things. You are not your previous self, but you have most likely been shaped by events that happened to your previous self, even if you do not remember those events. Does that make any sense? You said it better than I could. 3nodding
My personal opinion ties it into the Nature vs Nurture debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:28 pm
So enduring character is shaped by past experience? That makes a lot of sense, Tanyeera. But at the same time I've got a counter argument my philosophy teacher used on a classmate for you.
If we are constantly experiencing things, then we are constantly adapting and shaping our character-- which means it is not stable at all, is it? It changes every day, with every experience which, as you say, we may or may not remember. In light of that, don't know if it can be considered a fixed part of the self, what makes "you" always "you".
When I was a little girl I used to believe in God. Now that I'm older, in all that I've learned and seen, that faith is somewhat less inspired. So, my beliefs have changed-- they are not a fixed basis for my continued existence as "me". What part of "character" is not changed over time? What part of who I am makes me the same as that little girl who believed in God?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:50 am
Well, there's some kind of chemical balance, for lack of better words, in a person's brain that gives them their personalities. Those personalities shape the way a person will react to certain situation, and thus, changes the person with different experiences. I think that's what truly makes you "you".
For the record, I don't think I've ever believed in God. I used to enjoy having the stories from my Children's Bible read to me when I was very young, but then it ruined the whole thing when they tried to say it was "real". I just thought it was a good work of fiction. And on a side-note, I've always been very creative, intelligent, inquisitive, untrusting, and shy around new people. Those are the basis of my personality, and those things haven't changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:01 am
   You can be a king or a street sweeper,-nods- Some things never change, I say. I have always been extremely flamboyant (Rin and Kris could tell you that), I have always had a love of the dark side and snakes, I have always been able to create something off the top of my head (plots, poems, characters), and I have always been able to slack off to the very end, then pull some of the best grades in class (except Lebenns... wait, no - my 79 average is better then nearly everybody, so it stands true). I have always been able to prove my point and I have always accepted and understood the opinions of others, but I am immovable in my own opinions. I have always been competitive and I have always been good with technology without much knowledge of it ahead of time.
Of course - certain things change, whether they be because of memories/experiences, or simply because of aging. For instance, the older I grow, the less emotional I become - but I become stronger in areas that I strive to be so in.
but everybody dances with the Grim Reaper.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:41 am
i can end this with one kick to the balls, the only constant is change. Everything always changes, nothing ever totally stays the same, and that is the only constant.
also, the idea of looking back at yourself in photos, even ones you have no memory of, most often then not, you say "this was me when i was 5" or "this was me then" or something along those lines automatically inferring that you are no longer the person you were then.
on the idea of memories make you personality and but the question of what about the ones you don't remember. the experience is self shaped you during the event while, all events do, but it only the events you remember that become constant parts of you, while still receiving new one events and memories, constantly changing you.
now if any of that made sense to anyone else, i'll feel good (end)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:45 am
Proxy A Tergo So enduring character is shaped by past experience? That makes a lot of sense, Tanyeera. But at the same time I've got a counter argument my philosophy teacher used on a classmate for you.
If we are constantly experiencing things, then we are constantly adapting and shaping our character-- which means it is not stable at all, is it? It changes every day, with every experience which, as you say, we may or may not remember. In light of that, don't know if it can be considered a fixed part of the self, what makes "you" always "you".
When I was a little girl I used to believe in God. Now that I'm older, in all that I've learned and seen, that faith is somewhat less inspired. So, my beliefs have changed-- they are not a fixed basis for my continued existence as "me". What part of "character" is not changed over time? What part of who I am makes me the same as that little girl who believed in God? Oh no you don't! Like [double] [NEGATiiVE] and kaibaboy38 said, you tend to have a sort of base of your character. Sure that base can change occasionally, but not for every day events and not all the time. It takes a major event, or a major change in your life, to change your base in character. And even then, its unlikely that it'll be completely changed. There should still be a little bit remainding. Also, change may be constant, but not all at once, yeah? It takes ages for metal to rust to nothing. I suppose that at the point when a metal can is nothing more than flakes of ash, then you could maybe say its not a metal can anymore and is absolutely no relation to a metal can. But, be honest. How many people go through that thorough a transformation from their base character?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:34 pm
Well, I've heard of a theory where, when one sleeps, they wake up in a whole other dimension or as a different person... Kind of odd, if you think about it. I keep thinking to my-self, 'why would I continously bring it up if it were true?' But, I s'pose I can just be a paranoid little teenager.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 8:19 am
A base character? That's something I've never thought of before. Superficially, a personality can change, but the deeper... could we call it a 'soul'?... is basically immutable. Or, if it does change, it changes very slowly, so that pieces of it always remain the same.
But when exactly, is this 'soul' formed? If you think about it, is it really there when you are three years old, a chemical component of your brain, as Kaibaboy said? If that is the case, I would argue that it's not really you, but something hereditary passed down from your parents. Negative said that age and experience changes things, but some things stay the same. But what are these things? The capacity to love? Your favourite movie? The colour of your hair? Your aggressiveness? What changes, and what, as a part of the soul, is immovable?
An unchanging quality someone mentioned was intelligence. What happens if, in your old age, you suffer a stroke, and your brain is damaged? Are you still the same person? If so, then intelligence can't be part of your soul. Another possibility is that of someone else -say, Steven Hawking- considering you to be not intelligent at all. Is it still you if it isn't universally recognized? What if it's self delusion? (I'm not calling you stupid or anything, it's just an example. .__.;; )
Someone also claimed that they are immovable in their opinions, a part of their enduring self. I have to ask if experience truly does not change these in the least. For example, the Virginia Tech incident. Two months ago, could you have possibly had an opinion on it? And what if, one day, it was found that genetically modified foods cause cancer? That would change your opinion on the subject, no matter how stubborn you are.
Your opinions do change over time. So that can't be a part of your "base character". Neither can your body, because as mentioned before, it takes seven years for every cell in your body to die and regenerate. It is not something that endures. That includes every chemical in the brain, though arguably while the recipe is regenerated, it still makes the same cake. That recipe, though, is courtesy of heredity. I won't say that doesn't mean it isn't what establishes a soul, but... Jesus, that's scary. To think we have no freedom to choose who we are.
If there is a soul, it should be unique to us, shouldn't it? What then makes up this 'base character', which is unchangeable an ultmately defines who we are throughout our lives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 10:55 am
Enter Flame
♦♦♦♦
♠♠♠♠
we're all
Alright, let's go with the organic foods thing, for instance - and we have decreed it causes cancer. While there would be MANY people who'd stop eating it, there would still be people who'd say "If you eat it in good portions, we can save the environment AND ourselves!" - there are always going to be people who keep the same opinion, perhaps just because it is in there nature.
Another example could be pacifism - if you're somebody who despises war, and then in a terrorist attack - everybody you know and love dies. There would be many people who'd say "let's go to war with those mofos" and there would be some who said "they did something terrible, but won't we be just as bad as them if we fight them?"
I believe everybody has SOMETHING that they will stick to, even if it is challenged.
mad here
♥♥♥♥
♣♣♣♣
Fade to Black
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 10:09 am
I wouldn't call it a 'soul' exactly, mostly because I haven't completely formed an opinion on whether or not there is a such thing. That's why I went for the scientific end of it, a certain chemical make-up in the brain that gives each person their basics. And yes, your genes are a contemplation of your mother's and father's side of the family, but the thing that makes it 'unique' is the fact that the child will get certain traits from multiple people in the family, thus achieving a combination that none of the others have.
Yes, there are many things that change over time. Most of the things you listed in fact. Your tastes in movies is one thing that will probably change, because as people mature, they'll tend to look for something a little less childish. However, I've always liked the same type of character for as long as I can remember - dark, mysterious, and intelligent, often considered the 'rebel' character who prefers to forge his own path rather than follow that of others. Hair color, and most physical aspects of your body, are subject to change - hence, the condition and features of a person's body are not constant (except eye color, really). As for the other two, agressiveness and capability to love, have not changed for me over time. I'm sure it can change for others, but it hasn't for myself. Obviously, the events of a person's past can change things, but the chemical make-up of your brain will determine how a person copes with these things, how it shapes them.
Intelligence in terms of what you know at a given point in your life will always be changing, but your brain's capacity to learn will always remain the same. Also, other people will have different standards of intelligence, and some people may have more capability in one area than another (like writing or math) which may not give them an "over-all" intelligence in the eyes of some people. It basically goes by your own definition, but as a person's capacity to learn will not change, their intelligence will often be determined by comparison to the others around them. A person may not be smart in comparison to a genius, but they would be in comparison to the average person's standards. As an example, my writing skills have greatly improved over time (obviously, as an infant wouldn't be able to write at all), but they have always been far above the average person my age, and the same goes for creativity. In the circumstances of many people, they can be considered intelligent in one thing when they're younger, but their brain would only have the capacity to go so far (the reason why most people don't grow up to work in a science lab).
In the instance of a stroke, like you brought up, it does effect certain aspects of the brain which can change a number of things, depending on how severe. Some people do feel that, if those people have enough brain damage to change them so drastically, then they are not the same person they knew. Although, if the person were to be tested on their DNA (which, like you said, would keep recoding the same formula), it would be proved that they are the same person, but enough stress or injury to the brain will have an effect on its former capability to work the way it once did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
