The Existence Of A Self

There is an interesting discussion in Philosophy about whether the self exists or does not exist and, unfortunately for those who defend the existence of a self, there is strong evidence pointing to the fact that there is no such thing as a “self.” Some of these arguments will appear in this paper, but more importantly, I want to discuss why it appears that there is a self. A comparable misperception can be observed in vision. Sometimes, it appears that two lines are of different lengths, even though it can be demonstrated that the lines are the same length. Similarly, I will demonstrate, in the absence of a self, why there appears to be a “self.” In this paper I will give reconstructions for arguments against the self, including arguments …show more content…
Essentially, the mind and the body are separated in some way. They exist as two independent entities. In this case, the body is a physical thing and the mind is not a physical thing (or immaterial). In this argument, the ‘mind’ and the ‘self’ are thought of as the same thing. The issue here is a question of interaction. If the self is immaterial, then it cannot interact with something that is material. There would be no way for the self to communicate with the body and instruct it on doing what it does. Following this, we can assume that the self cannot be immaterial. Therefore, it is unlikely that that the self is dualistic. The arguments above provide a great deal of doubt in the existence of the self. In the likeliness of there being no self, a new question is raised. Why are we predisposed to think a self exists if a self does not …show more content…
If there is no “self” should we take variations of the word “self” out of language? This does not seem feasible based on human perspective. Further, how does this change human perspective? I am not entirely sure how this effects how people view themselves. Just because there is no “self” does not mean that people are not individuals. An alternative to the self may be that people are simply biological computers wired together based on DNA and environments which shape perspectives. This does not contradict an idea of individualism, and is consistent with Bundle Theory. People can still think as individuals and act as individuals without their being a “self.” Perhaps it would be good to look at people in a psychological context, like Bundle Theory, and understand that the single unit in front of us is a changing set of many features.
Finally, what am I if I have no “self”? Although I understand that I have no self, I am not entirely different as a person. It is simply that my views of people and humanity are different. There are arguments that the human mind is simply a result of biology. Perhaps even animals have simpler versions of what humans understand as the mind. Regardless, it would make sense to me that the collective mind of humanity would be changed if more people understood the non-existence of the “self”. Perhaps there is a deeper philosophical discussion that needs to be considered at this