Rational Egoism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Rational Egoism » Rational Egoism

Rational Egoism

Page: 1 2

Rational Egoism

unenlightened
mask of 'Unkind'

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1231

Posted 03/30/08 - 01:02 PM:	#26
The_Rational_Animal wrote: The Self is a man's mind, you know, the source of his reason-- which perceives, judges, and forms concepts (namely values). This is only a matter of definition, so you know what I am talking about; I'm not making any wide-reaching ontological claim. I bring it up only because of Buddhism, which holds the Self ("atman") to be an affliction of some kind, or that which holds the rational human down from "enlightenment" (which is essentially a more rational state of being, without the effects of emotions and ego-driven influences.) I think this may be where there are those conceptual difficulties you talked about. I think there is a difficulty that the self is the source and also the primary object of reason. It seems useful for many purposes to distinguish the external world from the mental world. I too want to stay out of ontology if possible, but at least I feel a need to distinguish ideas, imagination, thinking, reason, dreams, etc. from stones and bodies and stars and such. I'm pretty clear that the self belongs on the mental side of the world, which is not to say that it may not turn out to be 'made of' brain impulses. Now I think from what you say that you are roughly in agreement with this, but where we seem to differ quite strongly, is that you seem to regard the self as the whole of the mind, or at least the great majority of it, whereas I see it as merely an idea that the mind has, albeit an important (and highly addictive) one. I wonder if we can go into this a bit and see if it is possible to find out who is right? I think from what you say I would be closer to a Buddhist view, where rational and enlightened are opposed to self, but I don't want to saddle myself with a doctrine, that is just an observation. I'll just outline my idea of the idea of self... To have an idea of myself I have to start from memories, which need to have a degree of realism; in some ways my idea of self is a sort of summary of 'the story so far' of this particular body and this particular mind. Now if this story remained inactive, it would be straightforward information which could be used by the reasoning mind in the present. However, the way the mind uses the idea of self is to project, through the use of imagination, the self into the future. This becomes the major occupation of the mind and comes to dominate reason. Unfortunately, somewhere in the proceedings, there is a confusion between the remembered self, the present mind and the projected imagination and all are then thoughtof as a unitary and unchanging self, which then becomes the most important thing in the world. The truth is though, that it is not a thing in the world at all, it is a mental creation/facility which has mistaken itself for a real (out there) thing and called that reason. I rather rushed through that, but perhaps it gives you an idea to shoot at...
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 314

Posted 03/31/08 - 01:00 PM:	#27
unenlightened wrote: I would be closer to a Buddhist view, where rational and enlightened are opposed to self, but I don't want to saddle myself with a doctrine, that is just an observation. From what I am reading (correct if I'm wrong), I get a strong sense of Hume from this view of the Self, whose view can be summarized as: "The idea of the Self is simply a fiction; that is, since one is never aware of any enduring self, there is no impression to be felt that is the Self". This can be contrasted with a view of, say, an empiricist like John Locke, who would say "the Self is based upon self-consciousness; in particular upon memories about one's former experience". The contrast between the skeptic like Hume and the empiricist like Locke can be summarized as whether the idea of a Self is genuine, having authenticity, or ontological authenticity. Hume would say that there is a desire to give identity to things (including oneself) because of perceived spatiotemporal differences. unenlightened wrote: it is a mental creation/facility which has mistaken itself for a real (out there) thing and called that reason I certainly see the appeal of this view. For example, identity seems to change only with major changes: I ascribe the same identity to a person if they get a haircut or have a new scar, so it seems rather arbitrary. But I think your conception of the Self is a contradiction (and remember: "Contradictions don't exist... check your premises"). You cannot deny the Self in the process of pointing to yourself to make the argument. And recalling Descartes' cogito ergo sum, to deny the Self as the mind (or as reason) is to say that the "I" does not "think" (thinking = reasoning; don't believe me; reason - to use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=think)), and thus to make the Cogito invalid. If you say that the "I" (the Self) is a non-real entity, you are making a rather radical claim, one that doesn't have much empirical basis to it, and undercutting the foundation of modern philosophy. unenlightened wrote: (out there) There is a strong ontological difference between "real" and "extended". Of course, the Self is not extended; but it is most certainly real. Otherwise, what is the basis of saying "I"? Convenience? If your quasi-Buddhist view is correct, there is no "I" but only nothing. No identity, just an undivided wholeness, or unity. I've seen the Dalai Lama's arguments against identity, and I must say, not terribly convincing. unenlightened wrote: the way the mind uses the idea of self is to project, through the use of imagination, the self into the future I'm not sure what you mean. Is to say that the self is imagined into the future? That is, "I want that ham; when I acquire that ham, I will still want it because "I" will still be the "I" which wants that ham"? This comment is absurd, it’s contrary to reason. What else will "I" be except "I"? There is no possibility of being something else because the only alternative to "I" is "not-I" which equals death. But even in death, you still retain your Self because who is going to be you? I refer to myself as "I" because my consciousness (my Self), and by extension my body, is the only thing which I possess control over. I cannot control your consciousness directly because that consciousness is you, it is your Self, not mine. unenlightened wrote: Unfortunately, somewhere in the proceedings, there is confusion between the remembered self, the present mind and the projected imagination and all are then thought of as a unitary and unchanging self, which then becomes the most important thing in the world. Ah, back to the attacks on rational self-interest. Don't go saving any old ladies from ravenous monsters before the next time we speak. Edited by The_Rational_Animal on 03/31/08 - 02:08 PM
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

unenlightened
mask of 'Unkind'

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1231

Posted 04/01/08 - 10:33 AM:	#28
I do like Hume, but again, I don't want to be lumped in with him... The_Rational_Animal wrote: I certainly see the appeal of this view. For example, identity seems to change only with major changes: I ascribe the same identity to a person if they get a haircut or have a new scar, so it seems rather arbitrary. But I think your conception of the Self is a contradiction (and remember: "Contradictions don't exist... check your premises"). You cannot deny the Self in the process of pointing to yourself to make the argument. And recalling Descartes' cogito ergo sum, to deny the Self as the mind (or as reason) is to say that the "I" does not "think" (thinking = reasoning; don't believe me; reason - to use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=think)), and thus to make the Cogito invalid. If you say that the "I" (the Self) is a non-real entity, you are making a rather radical claim, one that doesn't have much empirical basis to it, and undercutting the foundation of modern philosophy. There is a strong ontological difference between "real" and "extended". Of course, the Self is not extended; but it is most certainly real. Otherwise, what is the basis of saying "I"? Convenience? If your quasi-Buddhist view is correct, there is no "I" but only nothing. No identity, just an undivided wholeness, or unity. I've seen the Dalai Lama's arguments against identity, and I must say, not terribly convincing. We both have to be rather careful here. I could say, 'well if contradictions don't exist, I cannot be making one.' I don't mind too much how you want to use the words - real, exist, contradiction etc. but I would like to say that the self does not exist in the same sense as contradictions don't - or, that the self is a contradiction in the sense that it is an inference from false premises. I hope we can agree that thought is real in the sense that something happens in brains, nevertheless, while one can eat brains, one cannot eat thoughts. So what of Descarte's "I am."? Since he has constructed the cogito from a radical scepticism of the world, I think the completion should logically be not, "I am" but "I am thought." He has constructed himself in the internal world of thought as an object of thought. I am quite happy to use this phrase - object of thought - although you might complain that it is a contradiction, because you want to maintain the distinction between thoughts and their objects, but that is my point, or my various points: that contradiction in thought is perfectly possible, and that a thought that has a thought as its object has an imaginary object. And so the self is not real. Now if you want to say that the self is real, then it seems to me you must find some physical manifestation - it is not enough to say the self is reason, because we agree that reason is thought. You said earlier that it is the 'source' of reason, and there you are getting very close to a religious way of talking - God is the source - I don't think we want to go there. I'm not sure what else you can mean though. It seems you are left with electro-chemical processes in the brain, but it is hard to see, rationally, why these should be regarded as having any special significance, let alone why the ones in 'this brain' should be more important than the ones in 'that brain'. I like the way the Dalai Lama laughs, but I don't really know his philosophy. I'm not sure what you mean. Is to say that the self is imagined into the future? That is, "I want that ham; when I acquire that ham, I will still want it because "I" will still be the "I" which wants that ham"? This comment is absurd, it’s contrary to reason. What else will "I" be except "I"? Sorry, that was rather truncated; I'll try and expand it a bit. I think that a large part of the way our brains have evolved to function is to run models of the world. The way one chooses a chess move (for poor players like myself) is along these lines - "If I do this, then he will do that and then I can do that..." In the ham case, I imagine in the future eating the ham and enjoying it, and that more or less is my desire. When I have the ham, and I'm eating it for real, it sounds rather odd to say that I still want it. I suppose I might say, "I don't want any more now, but I might want some more later." But then I am imagining the future again. I think desire is always this projection into an imagined future, and it is of course based on my memory of having ham in the past. So this is where the idea of a continuing self through time is created. Ham remembered, ham imagined and in between, a lack of ham right now, which is perhaps the Dalai Lama's 'nothing'. What is added by saying I remember ham, I imagine ham, but I have no ham now, it is only a pointer to where this situation 'exists', this remembering and imagining. There is no possibility of being something else because the only alternative to "I" is "not-I" which equals death. But even in death, you still retain your Self because who is going to be you? I refer to myself as "I" because my consciousness (my Self), and by extension my body, is the only thing which I possess control over. I cannot control your consciousness directly because that consciousness is you, it is your Self, not mine. I don't think I understand what you are saying here. There seem to be three separate entities "I" in possession of "a self" and also "a body" - again I am reminded of religion Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If the self is a fiction as I would say, then its death is also a fiction, and not greatly to be mourned - no one has to be me, because we can well manage without. Edited by unenlightened on 04/01/08 - 10:44 AM
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 314

Posted 04/01/08 - 05:09 PM:	#29
unenlightened wrote: that contradiction in thought is perfectly possible, and that a thought that has a thought as its object has an imaginary object. And so the self is not real. This rests on a presupposition that the Self is in fact a 'thought'. But is the Self really a 'thought'? People all my life have been calling me 'you' and calling those things which belong to me as 'yours'. They've been calling themselves 'me' and 'I' and addressing those things which belong to them as 'my' and 'mine'. If you want to claim that the Self is simply an a priori thought, this is wrong. There is a posteriori evidence that individual Selves exist, namely in how analogous the apparent "thoughts" I have of myself are to the way others characterize themselves as individuals, possessing their own individual Selves. A contradiction in thought implies that a thought is acting in such a way that is inconsistent with its nature. What is the nature of a thought? It is the content of cognition; the main thing you are thinking about. How can such a thing, a thought, act in a way that is inconsistent with being a content of cognition? It cannot; contradictions are only mistakes in knowledge and analysis. If you want to doubt the Self as a nihilist doubts the totality of existence, that is fine, but such doubt is not ~~rational~~, sorry, empirically-based. Like the nihilist, you expect me to find empirical evidence of my claim which cannot be doubted, as if the perception of the Self is the same as perception of external objects. unenlightened wrote: Now if you want to say that the self is real, then it seems to me you must find some physical manifestation - it is not enough to say the self is reason, because we agree that reason is thought. You said earlier that it is the 'source' of reason, and there you are getting very close to a religious way of talking - God is the source - I don't think we want to go there. I'm not sure what else you can mean though. The mind is a corollary of its physical manifestation, the brain, which is encased in this thing called a body, which people recognize as containing an unique brain, one that is not shared or accessible to any other conscious being. The reason why brains must be unique is because bodies are unique, and there is no perceptible linkage between bodies. Reason is what makes us aware that this individuality is the case; it is based on physical differences that the mind can derive this conclusion of difference and singularity. Well, you do not even need reason to conclude that you are a unique individual instance of a life form. And I don't get where you turn to God in all of this. unenlightened wrote: It seems you are left with electro-chemical processes in the brain, but it is hard to see, rationally, why these should be regarded as having any special significance, let alone why the ones in 'this brain' should be more important than the ones in 'that brain'. These brain states are important to me because I am having them. No other entity in the universe is having the same brain states as I am having. I do not, as you seem to think, deny that mental states exist with any kind of special significance. I only deny that mental states can be explained in terms of physical states. The fact that I am having these mental states makes them important to me because I am wired to have these mental states; they exist so that I can react to certain stimuli in a necessary fashion. They exist so that I can sustain my life in an appropriate fashion. If I deny the special significance of these mental states, deemphasize the importance of "this brain" and focus on "that brain", that is going against the biological reason why "this brain", and the consequent mental states, exist. Once again, we are coming upon self-interest. unenlightened wrote: What is added by saying I remember ham, I imagine ham, but I have no ham now, it is only a pointer to where this situation 'exists', this remembering and imagining. I know you don't like being bogged down with certain philosophical adherences, so this might not please you. But the view you are presenting is called presentism; that is, the current instantaneous moment is the only temporal entity which exists, and the past and present are merely memories and imaginings. I happen to disagree with this view because frankly it's absurd. How can you rationally talk about Socrates or Louis XVI of France if they do not exist? How can you say Lincoln was taller than Napoleon? How can you address truth-making functions for obvious truths, such as "there were human beings living on Earth twenty years ago"? Besides these, presentism was all but disproved by J.M.E. McTaggart in 1908. What you are saying is that the Self, if it did really exist, could not exist in the past or the future. The existent instantaneous moment of now is all that exists, but it does not exist with a concept of a Self because the Self is constantly remembering and imagining. Right? unenlightened wrote: There seem to be three separate entities "I" in possession of "a self" and also "a body" Honestly, I don't know where you are drumming up these religious allusions. But in saying "I" you are implying the exclusive possession of the Self, so there is no "trinity." The body, like in Descartes, is not necessarily a part of the 'I' because Descartes claimed that one could doubt the existence of the body but not the "I" which perceives it. unenlightened wrote: no one has to be me, because we can well manage without. As I say, the obvious contradiction in Hume's claims that the Self does not exist is apparent in your words. There must be identities of the "no one", something which differentiates between these others and you. If you truly believed that the Self is a fiction, a thought-contradiction, you would say that you are the same as everything else. That everybody is you, there is no difference. The only thing you are seemingly denying in these discussions is the existence of the past and present, which is the wrong method of doubting the existence of a Self, and a flawed metaphysical theory of time. Edited by The_Rational_Animal on 04/01/08 - 05:13 PM
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

unenlightened
mask of 'Unkind'

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1231

Posted 04/03/08 - 10:38 AM:	#30
The_Rational_Animal wrote: This rests on a presupposition that the Self is in fact a 'thought'. But is the Self really a 'thought'? People all my life have been calling me 'you' and calling those things which belong to me as 'yours'. They've been calling themselves 'me' and 'I' and addressing those things which belong to them as 'my' and 'mine'. If you want to claim that the Self is simply an a priori thought, this is wrong. There is a posteriori evidence that individual Selves exist, namely in how analogous the apparent "thoughts" I have of myself are to the way others characterize themselves as individuals, possessing their own individual Selves. A contradiction in thought implies that a thought is acting in such a way that is inconsistent with its nature. What is the nature of a thought? It is the content of cognition; the main thing you are thinking about. How can such a thing, a thought, act in a way that is inconsistent with being a content of cognition? It cannot; contradictions are only mistakes in knowledge and analysis. If you want to doubt the Self as a nihilist doubts the totality of existence, that is fine, but such doubt is not ~~rational~~, sorry, empirically-based. Like the nihilist, you expect me to find empirical evidence of my claim which cannot be doubted, as if the perception of the Self is the same as perception of external objects. Well I use the same words too - It seems useful to communication - so what? Also,I have said nothing about a priori - the evidence of what everybody thinks is rather weak; everybody used to think that the world was flat. And I am not doubting the totality of existence, and if you want my opinion of that you can look at my thread Scepticism is Parasitic. I know you are a bit of an Ismist, but here I really do protest , - ism me some other way. I don't think I even asked you for evidence in particular, but you maintain that the self is real, and when pressed, you seem to say that it is real because we talk about it and think about it. Well we have been talking about contradictions and yet you say they do not exist. I think I have the advantage here, because I am making a fairly natural distinction between what is real and out there in the world, like bodies and energy and forces and such, and what is imaginary and only in one's head, like dreams, illusions, emotions, thoughts, and the self. The difficulty you have, as I see it is that you need to keep the self in the head, and yet make it real, and the only things I know of in the head that are real are brains and electricity etc. The mind is a corollary of its physical manifestation... I don't understand this analogy of physics to logical argument; it seems confusing rather than clarifying. Reason is what makes us aware that this individuality is the case; it is based on physical differences that the mind can derive this conclusion of difference and singularity. Reason makes us aware?! Well, you do not even need reason to conclude that you are a unique individual instance of a life form. I thought concluding was the result of a process of reasoning - that's how I generally understand the words...? These brain states are important to me because I am having them. Are you having them, or are they having you? Could you tell the difference? I only deny that mental states can be explained in terms of physical states. {...} I am wired to have these mental states; ... Excuse me, but the latter is an explanation of mental states in physical terms. I know you don't like being bogged down with certain philosophical adherences, so this might not please you. But the view you are presenting is called presentism; that is, the current instantaneous moment is the only temporal entity which exists, and the past and present are merely memories and imaginings. I happen to disagree with this view because frankly it's absurd. How can you rationally talk about Socrates or Louis XVI of France if they do not exist? How can you say Lincoln was taller than Napoleon? How can you address truth-making functions for obvious truths, such as "there were human beings living on Earth twenty years ago"? Besides these, presentism was all but disproved by J.M.E. McTaggart in 1908. What you are saying is that the Self, if it did really exist, could not exist in the past or the future. The existent instantaneous moment of now is all that exists, but it does not exist with a concept of a Self because the Self is constantly remembering and imagining. Right? No, wrong. In common with quite a number of people, I tend to say things like "the king of France does not exist." this is because I happen to know that France is (at present) a republic. I will freely admit that in the past, as I understand, there did exist a king of France, but he is dead and has no current successor. So I have no problem saying that Lincoln was taller than Napoleon, but then I don't have a problem saying that Gandalf was taller than Frodo for that matter. I don't think that my conception of physical time is at issue, I was talking about desire. If you truly believed that the Self is a fiction, a thought-contradiction, you would say that you are the same as everything else. That everybody is you, there is no difference. You mean like, "The Self is a man's mind, the source of his reason, we're all the same, because there is only one rationality." I can say that if you like.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

freeyourdome
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 04/21/08 - 12:03 PM:	#31
Bhuddism is somewhat anti-autonomous in my opinion because if the self didn't exist, one would not be maximizing his ability to imagine and create. Autonomy leads to change--wherever that may lead. The best society allows as much autonomy without sacrificing anything that will cross a damage medium for lack of better words. Whatever the case may be, when you have a world of people with conflicting moral beliefs, things are contradicted. It also leads me to this quote by Rand. "When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress." Based on this premise, the best society is one that controls the passive man while allowing the active man to do what he wants. For example, say there is such a person who can take acid as a means to help him become more creative and think in an altered fashion. Unfortunately, this person cannot do so because it is against the law which was created because people were being irresponsible about it. Sometimes this man will find a way to do it anyway. But what if he is jailed? The point is that in such a case, a man is being inhibited by a weaker man. Unfortunately in most societies, rules are universally applied to its populous because there is no better way to do so in a controlled fashion. As time progresses, society arguably creates more autonomy for its people. Just some thoughts that were generated as a result of reading through all of this. Feel free to comment.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.