dbrodes

dbrodes t1_jb02nla wrote

I find your definition of self a bit reductionist tbh. I also find your tone a bit patronising but we'll move past that.

Your take is somewhat solipsistic. You agree that we are slave to our perceptions and experiences but seem to think the self transcends this.

Just because you choose to identify with your thoughts doesn't make them anymore 'you'.

1

dbrodes t1_javkb7g wrote

>If you do not have a self, then you are not reading this right now. Without a self, you do not exist as a person. You - do not exist. You are your 'self'. Without a 'self' you are a shell, a philosophical zombie, a mindless thing that has no thoughts, no feeling, no anything.

Why do think someone disconnected from their true self would have no thoughts or feeling?

How do you know your thoughts and feelings are authentically yours? Just because you experience something doesn't make your 'self' necessarily something tangible and independent from perception.

1

dbrodes t1_javieex wrote

How can you say your 'self' is real when you, yourself, concede your view of the world is influenced by perception, habits and socialisation. I'm just curious why you think the self is independent from being skewed by such perceptions?

0