2

I'm trying to understand various views on the self.

Descartes: The self is an absolute entity

Hume: The self is a relative entity

Nagarjuna(?): The self is neither an absolute nor a relative entity

I'm trying to understand a detailed account of each viewpoint. Can someone elaborate and point me resources for a comparative?

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    Leigh, On self-identity through the comparison between David Hume and Nagarjuna, Mouton, Hume and Descartes On Self-Acquaintance.
    – Conifold
    Commented May 17 at 12:07
  • Go with Nagarjuna on this one. At least, start gathering your detailed accounts there.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented May 17 at 12:14
  • Grandfather, Great Spirit! Hear me! A relative I am! A relative to all that is! Give me the eyes to see and the strength to understand that I may be like you! With your power only can I face the winds! - Black Elk. In the Lakota religion humans are living spirits encountering the other living spirits on a journey from birth to death. The self is a relative to all that is. The Great Spirit is the source of life all life exists in relation to this mystical source. If you think about this - it is true! Even in scientific work we must specify the system and surroundings as relative conditions.
    – SystemTheory
    Commented May 17 at 15:05
  • Somewhat difficult question: what is the difference with the bundle theory of self and anatman? There is no relative identity through time, becasue the bundle is always composed of different things. IDT that Hume is Theseus, so start there?
    – user71399
    Commented May 19 at 6:56

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

The self appears to itself (and to other selves) as an absolute entity. Each of us believes that we are the 'same' person we were many years ago; we believe that the people we know are the 'same' people we've always known; we often believe that people of certain 'types' are always of that 'type'. It's unsettling to discover that someone we 'know' as such is different than we understood: a criminal, a pervert, a sinner; a kindness, a saint, an exemplar…

It's easy (philosophically) to observe that the 'self' constantly changes. None of us is the same person we were years ago, nor would we necessarily want to be. We grow and evolve. We are only the 'same' as a matter of historical trajectory or congruency: that which has 'this' name and 'this' job and 'this' spouse, without regard to actual behavior.

In the end (metaphysically), who we are is an irrelevancy that will be lost to time. How we are (for good or ill) — our relations to other; what we project forward through interaction — will persist. When I die, no one will remember my grandfather, but what he taught me will carry on with those I teach.

Descartes wanted to establish the unique existence of the self. Hume wanted to demonstrate that this 'self' was a complex and changeable entity, not a simple and solid one. Nagarjuna (in an entirely different philosophical vein) wanted to explain that this complex, changeable self was a pragmatic illusion that had use, but no ultimate meaning.

This is a deep dive. The question we all face is how much we can handle. Pick your level and take the rest on spec…

Improve this answer
5
  • If the self is constantly changing, from which thing is the change observed? I think you meant that apart from changes in one's cells and thinking, one's self also changes. There is no possibility of a changeless thing?
    – SonOfThought
    Commented May 19 at 15:59
  • @SonOfThought: Is this a Buddhism question? 🤡 In Buddhism, everything with an identity is impermanent. 'That which observes' — Buddha nature — has no identity, and no real connection with past or future, too there's no sense asking about its permanence. Hinduism disagrees, using atman as a signifier for an unchanging 'pure' self. Western theology posits a unique soul that is eternal (except for those who believe it can be destroyed in Gehenna), but is ambiguous about whether that soul is unchanging. And Western philosophy hasn't effectively separated 'self' from language and time.
    – Ted Wrigley
    Commented May 19 at 16:38
  • @SonOfThought: Dealer's choice, I guess…
    – Ted Wrigley
    Commented May 19 at 16:38
  • @TedWrigley can you recommend a good source to read upon Nagarjuna's idea of self?
    – More Anonymous
    Commented May 21 at 15:49
  • @MoreAnonymous: I'm not the best for references, since I'm not really a devotee of any particular school. I can probably recommend Stephen Batchelor's "Verses from the Center". If that's too intellectually dense (Because both Batchelor and Nagarjuna lean that way), I know that Pema Chodron works form Nagarjuna a lot. One of her beers is bound to give you the flavor.
    – Ted Wrigley
    Commented May 21 at 17:20
0

lf the word 'entity' means -- 'a thing with distinct and independent existence', the self is not such a thing. In the case of the self, there is no need to use terms like distinct, dependent, independent etc. So one cannot explain, 'the self' using the word, 'entity'. But no problem in using the term, 'absolute'. If so one cannot accept the first two arguments.

The following link throws light into this idea: Brahman

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .