May there be no true self?

edited February 2011 in General Chat
May how you perceive that you perceive things be different than how some one else perceives that you perceive things?

Say I perceive that I'm a artist and I perceive that I perceive things as a artist and other people perceive that I truly perceive things in a different focus (way) from some insecurity or vulnerability rather than a strength. Maybe they perceive there's a true side to me and I choose to see things my way,

We may all have fundamental drives in our lives, love, interests, hobbies, talents, etc. We may be tied to these things, our professions, etc etc, Others and our selves may be able to take our "core" and invent that simply our cores create a perspective around itself, envelop who we are as people.

If how we perceive that we perceive ourselves is subjective then there may be no standard to base our self on, no real comparison. There's nothing out there, no true self, no absolute self, we have choices, we make choices because everything is subjective. There is no ultimate answer, there is no right answers. There's no standard to base self on.

Is there truly a real version of any one? Is there truly the way any one should be? How can you validate self when there is no true standard for self?

If there's no true self to self, or to others. If there is no true self, then how can you validate?
We may only be caple of being subjective, we are not all knowing there is no objective standard to base on ourselves on, we are imperfect. We are miscalculated...we may not be caple of calculated, solving for true self.

There may be no true self.
«1

Comments

  • edited December 2010
    True self is empty. Nothing but a human's limitations like as if it's only an animal. Hunger, thirst and somewhere to stay. Okay so, what makes us someone then? I mean, we're not animals, right? We're much more convoluted than that.

    Every individual wants to be special and don't want to be left out. A brigade of lions eating on a giraffe. No lion wants to be the one who bites the dust, literally, you know, since when everyone finishes eating the only thing left for you will be the skeleton of the damn thing and the dust.. They all go in, and they all want to be the one going first. When humans were nothing but animals, they had that too. Thanks to that they grew the feel of "significance", they didn't want to be "zero". In some particular events an individual felt being treated like shit or another one, but in the end they did feel how it bites. Then they saw the next victim of this, say, a caveman without a cave out in snowstorm. They grew empathy, they grew emotions. They let him in, they grew hospitality. They now knew that the significance is also present in every other individual.

    So that they didn't want to leave anyone out. Which means they needed a system. They started to build homes close, they started to hunt by large teams, they started to breed with planning. They evolved, they civilized. They got bigger in amount. They were more crowded, new problems popped out. They changed their system, it became a lot complicated now that there were new obstacles, such as food sources and landscape. They had to scatter around. This gave birth to localized administrations, travel, and they also gave birth to more problems. Sense of time became more significant. Inventions started. People scattered around greatly. This leaded to even other systems. It became more and more convoluted. People started to argue, people started to defend their systems and despise of another. Wars started, some saw their destruction and they hated war, some loved war BECAUSE it gave destruction to the ones they hate. Because of wars, empathy, and emotions, new systems were built, much and much convoluted. And now, it's today. And there are so many systems, beliefs, disbeliefs, likes and dislikes. Our fathers chose which one to like and which one to dislike, because there are so many branches on the tree now that you cannot have it all. We born, you born, you were a baby with nothing on your mind. You got inspiration from your father, who got inspiration from his and so on. You either made comparisons or added the new experiences in your life (which are also born from those convoluted system people built so long ago) right onto the inspirations you got from your family and other people. There are two sources that you might have the help when you're unconciously constructing your personality, your surroundings, and the difficulties you encounter. The two sources are always created by other individuals. Knowing that likes and dislikes are the randomly generated personal traits because of many complicated calculations of mankind and their communication and reaction to each other -which also borns from the systems, which are born from being an animal and its difficulties-, yes, there is no true self. It's inspirations from others or random events that you encounted that are caused by the inspirations that other people holds onto. You live nothing. Everything is there because we're limited animals who can't do everything and must do something to survive.




    loljk enjoy your life.
  • edited December 2010
    I haven't read everything and I'm already freaked out.

    The reason I didn't read everything is so I wouldn't be freaked out.
  • edited December 2010
    This sounds like the last codec call In Metal Gear Solid 2 with Raiden and the AIs.
  • edited December 2010
    Remolay wrote: »
    I haven't read everything and I'm already freaked out.

    The reason I didn't read everything is so I wouldn't be freaked out.

    Tbh I also didn't read the whole post of doodo because it does bring me down time to time.
  • edited December 2010
    Falanca wrote: »
    Tbh I also didn't read the whole post of doodo because it does bring me down time to time.

    I wake up in the middle of the night to write things down. When I'm walking , working, eating, I get ideas. I hear voices in my head, ideas, words.

    I've cried, I've posted about women, my life. I used to pray, I pray some times.
    About 5 ro 6 years ago I started asking questions. I started posting on line, I started to question everything.

    I'm posting about this now, and I've posted about it before.

    My life is my life. I'm living my life. I was there, and now I'm here. I'm asking a new question.
  • edited December 2010
    doodo! wrote: »
    I wake up in the middle of the night to write things down. When I'm walking , working, eating, I get ideas. I hear voices in my head, ideas, words.

    I also wake up in the middle of the night because I sleep during daytime. And I get bored by writing things, even if it's for the action adventure game I'm planning to make for at least 4 years now. And the ideas I get are basically for the cutscenes I want to have in this game I'm planning to get and they usually pop up when I listen to Diablo Swing Orchestra, Iron Maiden or Megadeth. The words I hear inside are basic ego temperings and the most simplistic worries. The shit I eat are only greasy food that one day I won't be able to eat.

    TL;DR I live dude, no matter how banal or uninteresting it is. And I always think myself as someone that can observe his surroundings. I mean you don't have to bother yourself and give harm to your mental health in the process. Just enjoy this sucker ride, it's not like you can do everything. I just see it as a long challenge, that's all.
    doodo! wrote: »
    I've cried, I've posted about women, my life. I used to pray, some times I do. About 5 ro 6 years ago I started asking questions. I started posting on line, I started to question everything.

    That may be either because you can't find answers in your real life surroundings. Maybe people are too shy-shy about going in depth with such stuff. Heck, I'm like that. It's hard to form meaningful and easily understandable sentences in one go when you talk about deep stuff. By posting you at least have time to think on what you're saying. And STILL I make a bunch of mistakes and errors while responding to your threads, lol.

    It's understandable, but as I said, it won't make you go anywhere. Maybe you can write a philosophy book and live a humble life from the little income it gets for a year or two, but really, try to see the bright side of it. It's a ride that you shouldn't even care spending.
  • edited December 2010
    I post questions. I occasionaly post about my life. I ask for answers often. I live my life. I ask quesions on forums, I get answers as I and others percieve them:)

    I live my life. I get answers. I post most questions on forums , I don't often ask questions to others vocally.

    My life is my life, and I live it.

    I have a Facebook now. Last night I saw Tron with my family.

    :D
  • edited December 2010
    I'm not saying that. Well, yes, I did say that, but I'm not.

    I mean I'm not saying you're not already living, it's just, you have so many questions, man. Usually people don't want to go in depth with it because it's basically an insanity hazard. I don't mind most things that happen to me because I'm an unresponsive fuck and it's how I roll, but you manage to bring me down, even.
  • edited December 2010
    Falanca wrote: »
    it's basically an insanity hazard..

    Maybe you're "right"... ;)
  • edited December 2010
    I am who I am, and that's that.

    Doodo, not as a strike against you, but if you don't already go see a psychologist, I'd recommend you do so. Gives you a person to talk about these sorta things to people who knows what they're talking about, instead of a bunch of nerds.
  • edited December 2010
    Nerds who may tempted to make Persona based comments. I managed to stop myself, but it's a close thing. Hell, I may come back and edit this....


    Dammit, I put this up and immediately came back to it, I am a huge nerd. A sense of what one is physically is something very basic to all living things. The knowledge of what is 'you' and 'not you' is something necessary for a species to survive and continue. However, the sense of 'self' implies a sentience, that you not only are aware of your physicality, but also of your mental presence.

    "Be Your True Mind" is the Persona motto even if each game has it's own arc words (Example would be "Momento Mori" from Persona 3 or "Reach Out To The Truth" for Persona 4) The concept being that the true self is facing one's inner demons and insecurities, forging what is one's base personality into it's most realized form. There is not an 'absolute' true self, because the process of creating what would be considered your 'true' self is entirely subjective to your life experiences and individual personality. However, simply because there is no 'absolute' definition of a true self does not mean the true self does not exist, rather it simply means that the process of creating one's 'true mind' is internally directed rather than influenced by outside factors.

    There is my Persona based nerd out, enjoy.
  • edited December 2010
    I have several replys to read, including the new ones on this page. I'm not going to argue any of them. :)
    No. It's true that our self-perception may be faulty, that we may be completely wrong about X, Y, Z, but that doesn't affect the reality of things either way. If I suppose that I am an artist, and I believe I interpret things through that lens, my being wrong doesn't mean I don't have a set, identifiable, true self - it only means that I have failed to adequately assess myself.



    That said, I understand people to be, essentially, patterns - patterns of matter, energy, and data. These patterns are eternally changing, though what I ate for dinner last Thursday makes a rather smaller impact than who my parents are. So the "self" is something which is impermanent, and we are by our nature often hypocritical, contradictory beings. But that does not mean it is non-existent.
    post wrote:
    Don't confuse subjective values with subjective reality. You exist. I exist. The external world exists...in a sensed 'thing'. Whether you acknowledge that all there is that exists is what the mind perceives or that it exists independent of your existence, it doesn't change the objective reality that something exists as long as you realize it.



    Other than that, how you view the world is likely different than what others see, if only that they see it from different angles (metaphorically or otherwise) as well as in another time period. Read up on some pre-socratics - though their morality may be primitive, there are some nice ideas, like how nothing changes, or everything changes.
    post wrote: »
    If two people perceive an object differently it does not deny the reality of said object, it speaks only of subjective experience. Only if you were to prescribe to thoughts of say Jung who stated that we can only know the mind and anything outside of it is merely conjectural; we can only assert, not confirm. Subjective experience does not define an objective reality, merely how it is perceived.
    SPiRiT wrote: »

    If how we perceive that we perceive ourselves is subjective then there may be no standard to base our self on, no real comparison. There's nothing out there, no true self, no absolute self, we have choices, we make choices because everything is subjective. There is no ultimate answer, there is no right answers. There's no standard to base self on.



    Is there truly a real version of any one? Is there truly the way any one should be? How can you validate self when there is no true standard for self?



    If there's no true self to self, or to others. If there is no true self, then how can you validate?

    We may only be caple of being subjective, we are not all knowing there is no objective standard to base on ourselves on, we are imperfect. We are miscalculated...we may not be caple of calculated, solving for true self.



    There may be no true self.



    By which standard should we be making such a comparison? Why do you say there is no true self? You stated that there is no true self but have no given a reason why. Moreover, what does "true self" mean? When talking about the self, we come to an intersection of psychology, philosophy and religion, each giving their own perspectives as well as, on occasion supplying one another. Often when we talk about "true self", it is referred to as "Self". Now this can be understood as the "Self" in Jungian (yes, I find Jung interesting) archetypes, but also takes on religious connotations. In some Hindu thought, the true self, Self, is identical with God (Brahman. The "true self" can also connote an idea of a soul, as well.



    As for the concept of no self, the most developed thought I have encountered regarding "no-self" (anatman in Sanskrit) is the various Buddhist thoughts. This is mostly a counter-argument to the Indic concept of atman however it develops further when brought into the metaphysics. The basis of the philosophy of anatman is that nothing is permanent, that everything is a constant state of change. What we perceive as "self" is in reality just "heaps", aggregates (there's five, I forget them all but it's stuff like physical form, perception, etc...). They come together within a given temporal context and exists within, yet it has a definite beginning and ending.



    Because of the impermanent nature of the self, it is said to be empty. Emptiness, in the most simplistic way I can explain, is the impermanent nature of things, the lack of an essence (a svabhava, an inherent existence). Something that has an "essence", an inherent existence is eternal, unchanging. Yet one of the marks of existence in Buddhism is impermanence, thus everything is empty. It should be noted that when speaking of something being empty or the emptiness of a thing, that we are not speaking of a quality that an object can possess but merely expressing it's natural state.



    To say things are empty does not deny their existence, it merely speaks of their impermanent nature. A chair does exist, however it is empty. Conventionally, we can say the chair exists though in the ultimate sense, it does not because it is empty. Buddhism does clearly expounds a philosophy of no-self while maintaining the fact that conventional you do exist.



    The last bit might be a bit confusing because I am trying to condense something very complex into a few short paragraphs and I do not feel that I am doing it much justice to be honest. It is fairly more convoluted than what has been given. I could expand if need be, but it will just get more confusing. Hell, I was confused for a month when I first began learning this stuff. Sometimes, it still confuses me.



    The point of the Buddhism section in this post (a too long;didn't read) is that you can have a philosophy of no-self while affirming reality. They are not mutually exclusive.
  • edited December 2010
    There's a face that we wear
    In the cold light of day -
    It's society's mask,
    It's society's way,
    And the truth is
    That it's all a facade!

    There's a face that we hide
    Till the nighttime appears,
    And what's hiding inside,
    Behind all of our fears,
    Is our true self,
    Locked inside the facade!

    Every day
    People, in their own sweet way,
    Like to add a coat of paint,
    And be what they ain't!

    That's how our little -
    Game is played,
    Livin' like a masquerade
    Actin' a bizarre charade -
    While playing the saint!

    But there's one thing I know,
    And I know it for sure:
    This disease that we've got
    Has got no ready cure!
    And I'm certain
    Life is terribly hard -
    When your life's a facade!

    Look around you!
    I have found
    You cannot tell, by lookin' at the surface,
    What is lurkin' there beneath it!
    See that face!
    Now, I'm prepared to bet you,
    What you see's not what you get -
    'Cause man's a master of deceit !

    So, what is the sinister secret?
    The lie he will tell you is true? -
    It's that each man you meet
    In the street
    Isn't one man but two!

    Nearly everyone you see -
    Like him an' her,
    An' you, an' me -
    Pretends to be
    A pillar of society -
    A model for propriety -
    Sobriety
    An' piety -
    Who shudders at the thought
    Of notoriety!

    The ladies an' gents 'ere before you -
    Which none of 'em ever admits -
    May 'ave saintly looks -
    But they're sinners an' crooks!

    Hypocrites!
    Hypocrites!

    There are preachers who kill!
    There are killers who preach!
    There are teachers who lie!
    There are liars who teach!
    Take yer pick, dear -
    "Cause it's all a facade!

    If we're not one, but two,
    Are we evil or good?
    Do we walk the fine line -
    That we'd cross if we could?
    Are we waiting -
    To break through the facade?

    One or two
    Might look kinda well-to-do -
    Hah! They're bad as me an' you,
    Right down they're boots!

    I'm inclined to think -
    Half mankind
    Thinks the other half is blind!
    Wouldn't be surprise to find -
    They're all in cahoots!

    At the end of the day,
    They don't mean what they say,
    They don't say what they mean,
    They don't ever come clean -
    And the answer -
    Is it's all a facade!
    Is it's all a facade!
    Man is not one, but two,
    He is evil and good,
    An' he walks the fine line
    We'd all cross if we could!

    It's a nightmare -
    We can never discard -
    So we stay on our guard -
    Though we love the facade -
    What's behind the facade?
    Look behind the facade!
  • edited December 2010
    doodo! wrote: »
    There's no standard to base self on.

    If that's what you truly believe, then create your own standard.
  • edited December 2010
    Thank you all for your replies. Made me think.
  • edited December 2010
    Hmmm... I'm not so sure.

    Let me go ask my other self...

    ....

    Err... He's not so sure either.
  • edited January 2011
    I believe I may currently believe that relationships take away indivudality.
  • edited January 2011
    I did not read any of this convoluted thread... I can say however.. that we are all influenced be each other and things around us so in a sense we are all a collective conscience influencing the way we think .... any one of us can effect the other.

    also we change from day to day.. I certainly am not the same person I was a decade ago.... or even 5 years ago..

    Now... did anything I just wrote have anything to do with the actual content of this thread?
  • edited January 2011
    Irishmile wrote: »
    I did not read any of this convoluted thread... I can say however.. that we are all influenced be each other and things around us so in a sense we are all a collective conscience influencing the way we think .... any one of us can effect the other.

    also we change from day to day.. I certainly am not the same person I was a decade ago.... or even 5 years ago..

    Now... did anything I just wrote have anything to do with the actual content of this thread?

    I'm sure that some one has percieved it has, if not to myself then I'm sure some one atleast percieves that it may have something to do with the content their self.

    You "make" what may be a "valid" point.
  • edited January 2011
    doodo! wrote: »
    You "make" what may be a "valid" point.


    dude.
  • edited January 2011
    Giant Tope wrote: »

    :D

    The words make and valid, although it may be assumed that they have implied meanings, they might mean different things to others.

    How does some one actually make a point? They may not actually make a point so much as they go through a individual process, series of thoughts to "make" a point.

    What I consider valid may not be what others consider valid. Validation has what may be considered as subjective standards in a case such as this one.
  • edited January 2011
    Its my experience that if you are trying to make a point just make it without trying to sound deep while using vocabulary that you do not fully understand.... just be yourself and remember sometimes less is more..

    In other words ... I refuse to believe you talk like this in person.. so just talk normal.. I think we can all agree we would rather get to know the real you and not this over analyzing every word character you have come up with recently....

    Also do not over analyze that as me being mean.. because it it not my intention.
  • edited January 2011
    Cogito ergo sum.
  • edited January 2011
    I am beginning to speak in this way but it seems to me, in a way that I may understand, that I believe that I believe , people do not take in every word.

    Every one may be trained to trust their personal opinions rather than ideas. I do not believe I can stop, as I percieve stopping, as I believe I percieve things, in the way I percieve them, how I percieve them.(?) When I wake up in the morning and live out my day the way I believe I percieve things is that my mind may have "altered, committmed "to what I consider possibly new beliefs , new ideas.(?)

    I percieve that I believe ideas are a string, series, of information. (?)

    ----people tell me that it's no wonder I forget so much in the real world because I try to wrap my mind around such content, as they have(in)directly lead me to believe they precieve to be ,complicated content----
  • edited January 2011
    doodo! wrote: »
    blah blah boring talk

    Dude. I exist. Do you? I have no damned idea.

    Also. Send me the link.
  • edited January 2011
    Irishmile wrote: »
    In other words ... I refuse to believe you talk like this in person.. so just talk normal..
    doodo! wrote: »
    I do not believe I can stop, as I percieve stopping, as I believe I percieve things, in the way I percieve them, how I percieve them...

    Advice taken onboard then.

    Seriously though, maybe it makes sense to yourself and some others, but when I read it, it's just cobblers
  • edited January 2011
    Trying too hard to be deep.
  • edited January 2011
    Irishmile wrote: »
    Trying too hard to be deep.

    True dat.
  • edited January 2011
    TomPravetz wrote: »
    Also. Send me the link.

    Can we take a moment to acknowledge how subtle and hilarious this post was?
  • edited January 2011
    We'll for what it's worth I don't remember any of posting in my other threads, on topic. There are a few members here that do.
  • edited January 2011
    Half my posts are off topic... I do not really care though... If there comes a day its a problem.. banning me is always an option... :eek:
  • edited January 2011
    Irishmile wrote: »
    Half my posts are off topic... I do not really care though... If there comes a day its a problem.. banning me is always an option... :eek:

    Ban Irishmile?! EGAD! Unthinkable.
  • edited January 2011
    Irishmile wrote: »
    Half my posts are off topic... I do not really care though... If there comes a day its a problem.. banning me is always an option... :eek:

    Why would we ban one of the founding members? I think you're an original piece of these forums and obviously have a place here at the forums if you want it.
  • edited January 2011
    2009 is considered founding...?
  • edited January 2011
    Giant Tope wrote: »
    2009 is considered founding...?

    I viewed him as a older member for whatever reason...:D
  • edited January 2011
    doodo! wrote: »
    Why would we ban one of the founding members? I think you're an original piece of these forums and obviously have a place here at the forums if you want it.

    Am I an original? :D
  • edited January 2011
    it probably just seems that way because I have something to say about just about everything.... and if I do not know what to say I say it in the form of pictures... or interpretive dance... but you guys can not see that part.... because I do not have a webcam.
  • edited January 2011
    I may start combining doodo's threads into one uber-doodo-quasi-philosophical musings thread, as has been mooted several times already.

    They're all pretty much the same discussion, from what I can tell. doodo thinks of something when he should probably be at work, posts it, waits for replies. Posts more. Starts the same thread again in a day or so. Repeat.
  • edited January 2011
    Giant Tope wrote: »
    2009 is considered founding...?

    If so I wana be a founder.
  • edited January 2011
    There is no true self. If you delete absolutely every value that you learned through your life and become a moral nihilist, you can become anything you want to be. You can be Mr.x 1 day and the next day you can change your believes and become Mr.z as if your values were cloths. That's one of the things that makes nihilism awesome.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.