No Self?

[JasonM]

I was lurking the INTP boards, and there was some discussion as to whether the concept of us having no "self" makes any sense. In my mind, it is completely counter-intuitive. I can't make sense of the idea of perceptions without the notion of a perceiver. Interestingly, the INTPs didn't put forward the basic arguments as to why we should believe that we have no self. That makes it hard to understand. Maybe someone here who buys into this can tell me why I should believe that I have no self.

[HazMathew]

Have you ever looked into the philosophy of Buddhism?

It is centered around the concept of dukka (roughly translates to suffering) and it's relation to the ego.

Read Mindfulness in Plain English by Bhante Henepola Gunaratana

Another good text is Zen Mind Beginner's Mind by Suzuki

Easily attainable at your local library, book store and of course Amazon.com :)

[Claptonian]

You can't believe that you have no self, because if you have no "self," then who is doing the believing?

The concept of no "self" is one of these philosophies that totally ignores logic.

[Rowan]

You can't believe that you have no self, because if you have no "self," then who is doing the believing?

The concept of no "self" is one of these philosophies that totally ignores logic.

Indeed, as Descartes established (Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum) the self is beyond doubt; Buddhism likes to call itself a philosophy (as opposed to a religion) to elevate itself to a level of intellectual respectably not awarded to superstitious and mystic claims, but it does not deserve such respect. Nietzsche, who I do respect, attacked the notion that the cogito justifies the I, but ultimately experiences demand a subject, thoughts an I – of course, Nietzsche is right to be dubious about what this ‘I’ is, but he cannot meaningfully doubt its existence. I wonder if Nietzsche would still hold to his stance if he encountered the Neurophilosophers (supposed heirs of Hume), who employ scientism and reductionism to hack away at the self. The contemporary British philosopher Raymond Tallis goes even further than Descartes, establishing the possible origins of the agentive self in human hands giving rise to the Existential Intuition, that ‘I am a thing that exists’.

[Motor Jax]

I was lurking the INTP boards, and there was some discussion as to whether the concept of us having no "self" makes any sense. In my mind, it is completely counter-intuitive. I can't make sense of the idea of perceptions without the notion of a perceiver. Interestingly, the INTPs didn't put forward the basic arguments as to why we should believe that we have no self. That makes it hard to understand. Maybe someone here who buys into this can tell me why I should believe that I have no self.

Jason

there is also the works of C.G. Jung and Sigmund Freud that explains "self, sense of self, and egoisms"

[HazMathew]

Buddhism likes to call itself a philosophy (as opposed to a religion) to elevate itself to a level of intellectual respectably not awarded to superstitious and mystic claims, but it does not deserve such respect.

The philosophy of Buddhism, more specifically mindfulness has had extensive scientific studies and is prominent in current day practice of psychology. There are many forms of Buddhism, but the main philosophy of mindfulness has no superstitious or mystical claims. With practice one can discipline their mind to respond to stress and suffering rather than react to it and in turn cause more suffering.

Mindfulness identifies the ego as the prime cause of suffering. Who is feeling the stress? you are. Who is having the pain? you are. That is perfectly ok. We can not deny the fact that the ego exists because it does, and is quite natural and human.

Buddhism doesn't claim that the self doesn't exist, but that it is the cause of all our suffering. To have no self would be to not suffer.

[Rowan]

The philosophy of Buddhism, more specifically mindfulness has had extensive scientific studies and is prominent in current day practice of psychology. There are many forms of Buddhism, but the main philosophy of mindfulness has no superstitious or mystical claims. With practice one can discipline their mind to respond to stress and suffering rather than react to it and in turn cause more suffering.

Mindfulness identifies the ego as the prime cause of suffering. Who is feeling the stress? you are. Who is having the pain? you are. That is perfectly ok. We can not deny the fact that the ego exists because it does, and is quite natural and human.

Buddhism doesn't claim that the self doesn't exist, but that it is the cause of all our suffering. To have no self would be to not suffer.

What feels pleasure? I do. What feels contentment? I do. To have no self would imply death. There is nothing profound about saying that the subject experiencing suffering experiences the suffering, it is a mere tautology.

[HazMathew]

I didn't come here to argue semantics or defend buddhism but to provide the original poster some resources to investigate the concept of 'no self' for himself.

I will leave with a quote from the Dalai Lama,

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own world view."

[Capwolf]

I don't doubt a "self" because I experience one and notice the experience; but I do doubt that it has any significance beyond an alchemy of the particular environmental (including genetic) factors surrounding me since conception. The moment people start to define "self" beyond that, it sounds to me like "superstitious and mystic claims."

I hope you didn't come to any conclusions because of that INTP Central thread, if it's the recent one that comes up in google. It didn't look like anyone there agreed or even interpreted the question in the same way, so any attempt to make it all gel as one view is going to come up with Frankenstein's monster painted by Picasso.

What feels pleasure? I do. What feels contentment? I do. To have no self would imply death.
Not really. Death is something specific, and specifically different from a lack of "self" or any discernible awareness.

[Motor Jax]

I didn't come here to argue semantics or defend buddhism but to provide the original poster some resources to investigate the concept of 'no self' for himself.

I will leave with a quote from the Dalai Lama,

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own world view."


i remember reading about him in a TIMES magazine just recently, and saying it just like that

[Rowan]

Not really. Death is something specific, and specifically different from a lack of "self" or any discernible awareness.

That is rather pedantic, but I guess in such a delicate debate that is to be expected. Allow me to rephrase myself: a lack of a self would mean the lack of anything that could experience a lack of suffering – or, for that matter, a lack of anything that could experience.

I didn't come here to argue semantics or defend buddhism but to provide the original poster some resources to investigate the concept of 'no self' for himself.

That’s fine, but unfortunate. I always like a good debate.

I will leave with a quote from the Dalai Lama,

“If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. […]”

I’m sure both you and the Dalai Lama know that science cannot disprove anything that is unfalsifiable – out of genuine interest, what belief of Buddhism could science possibly prove wrong?

[Vayate]

What feels pleasure? I do. What feels contentment? I do. To have no self would imply death. There is nothing profound about saying that the subject experiencing suffering experiences the suffering, it is a mere tautology.
You're misunderstanding he statement, actually; the phrase is "there is suffering," not "I am suffering." The difference is subtle, but very important -- this acknowledgment means that suffering is an expected occurrence in the world, that everyone suffers, and that all of that suffering is equal in value (even if not equal in distribution). The statement serves to take away the I in the whole equation of suffering and thus encourages placing one's suffering in a broader perspective.

As someone who enjoys east asian studies, I encourage you to lern2 buddhism

[Capwolf]

That is rather pedantic, but I guess in such a delicate debate that is to be expected. Allow me to rephrase myself: a lack of a self would mean the lack of anything that could experience a lack of suffering – or, for that matter, a lack of anything that could experience.

I don't think it's pedantic at all. It's relevant to the topic that there need not be a self for there to be life, and you were negating that for dramatic effect in an entirely different argument.


JasonM: how are you defining self, anyway? Do you think perception alone is enough to establish a self; that you don't need some amount of metacognition or emotions about your perceptions? If a being has no predictable reaction that isn't due to instinct or programming, does it have a self?

[Rowan]

I don't think it's pedantic at all. It's relevant to the topic that there need not be a self for there to be life […]

I suppose you’re right – although my point (as mangled as it was) is that saying the self is the cause of suffering is a rather hollow truism. I was taking issue with the statement ‘To have no self would be to not suffer.’ To have no self would be to not experience anything; it’s like saying to have no self would be to have no self – does that need pointing out?

[…] and you were negating that for dramatic effect in an entirely different argument.

Was I? What argument was that?

The statement serves to take away the I in the whole equation of suffering and thus encourages placing one's suffering in a broader perspective.

You cannot meaningfully take away the I from suffering; it is always an I that suffers – and any broader perspective is still inherently the broader perspective of an I. Suffering is wholly dependent on a subject.

As someone who enjoys east asian studies, I encourage you to lern2 buddhism

At some point I would be happy to do so.

[Capwolf]

I suppose you’re right – although my point (as mangled as it was) is that saying the self is the cause of suffering is a rather hollow truism. I was taking issue with the statement ‘To have no self would be to not suffer.’ To have no self would be to not experience anything; it’s like saying to have no self would be to have no self – does that need pointing out?
I don't want to get into Buddhism (about which I know practically nothing), but "the self is the cause of suffering" is not the same as "the self is necessary to experience suffering." You need a womb to experience pregnancy, but the womb is not the cause of pregnancy--A implies B, but B does not imply A. The distinction might be totally uninteresting to you in this instance, but that doesn't mean that those are identical arguments. Unless, that is, I don't properly understand either your or the Buddhist position.

And that's rather closer to a semantic argument than I generally care to step. :)

Was I? What argument was that?
The argument that "the subject experiencing suffering experiences the suffering [...] is a mere tautology," which has nothing to do with whether no self = no life.

[Vayate]

You cannot meaningfully take away the I from suffering; it is always an I that suffers – and any broader perspective is still inherently the broader perspective of an I. Suffering is wholly dependent on a subject.
I'm not arguing about the lack of self; indeed, Hinduism is completely nihilistic toward everything but the self and Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. The point of acknowledgment is to essentially take the indignation out of one's reaction to suffering by stating that everyone and everything in this world suffers. Thus you go from asking "why is this happening to me" to "suffering happens and this is not an affront to myself or anyone else."

[Rowan]

I'm not arguing about the lack of self; indeed, Hinduism is completely nihilistic toward everything but the self and Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism.

I’m confused, you did say, ‘to take away the I in the whole equation of suffering’.

The point of acknowledgment is to essentially take the indignation out of one's reaction to suffering by stating that everyone and everything in this world suffers.

I don’t see how loosing indignation naturally follows from acknowledging suffering in others. Personally I’m rather indignant about anyone’s suffering.

I don't want to get into Buddhism (about which I know practically nothing), but "the self is the cause of suffering" is not the same as "the self is necessary to experience suffering." You need a womb to experience pregnancy, but the womb is not the cause of pregnancy--A implies B, but B does not imply A.

Good point; however, to say the self is necessary to experience suffering still seems to me an empty truism.

The argument that "the subject experiencing suffering experiences the suffering [...] is a mere tautology," which has nothing to do with whether no self = no life.

But we weren’t arguing about life at that point in the debate.

[Capwolf]

Good point; however, to say the self is necessary to experience suffering still seems to me an empty truism.
Maybe so, but that's not what they were arguing. They argued that self caused suffering.

But we weren’t arguing about life at that point in the debate.
Yes, exactly. That's why I said that "you were negating [that there need not be a self for there to be life] for dramatic effect in an entirely different argument." You said something that I consider to be wholly untrue, just as rhetorical punctuation in your argument against Buddhism--without even intending to argue whether self is necessary to life.

[Rowan]

Maybe so, but that's not what they were arguing. They argued that self caused suffering.

Sorry, wrong way around; I’m all over the place in this debate and I apologise for that. Do they mean that the self is sufficient to cause suffering? That is to say, that the self is all that is required to suffer? I think such a position is rather hard to reasonably maintain; how could it be falsified?

You said something that I consider to be wholly untrue, just as rhetorical punctuation in your argument against Buddhism--without even intending to argue whether self is necessary to life.

You seem to be attributing rather malign motives to what was a mistake.

[Capwolf]

I'm not trying to attribute motive--that's why I've been careful to reiterate that I think you said it not because you meant it, but for effect. You brought in an issue that is related to the topic--not as a complementary argument, but as a rhetorical flourish. I didn't agree with what you said, but did think the issue inadvertently raised was pertinent and worth discussing, so I pointed it out and explained why I thought you were wrong.


Sorry, wrong way around; I’m all over the place in this debate and I apologise for that. Do they mean that the self is sufficient to cause suffering? That is to say, that the self is all that is required to suffer? I think such a position is rather hard to reasonably maintain; how could it be falsified?
Oh, I see. Yes--I think the argument is that the self is sufficient, and the fact that there is a self, that we experience a self, is what makes us suffer; and that if you let go of your grip on the self (or possibly on the importance of your own unique experience or interpretation?), then you will let go of suffering. Please correct me if I am wrong, anyone; as I said, I don't really have a clue when it comes to Buddhism. I never studied philosophy.

I'm not sure "can it be falsified" is really useful in talking about abstract human experience--probably it can be, but "can we do it (now, with our cultural limitations, and as members of the affected group)" is another question entirely. And of course it again depends heavily on how each side is defining "self". If one person thinks that perception (without necessarily having any kind of higher awareness) is all that's necessary to prove self, and someone else thinks it takes more than that--but both just say "self"--then it's going to be difficult to have any kind of illuminating discussion.

[JasonM]

JasonM: how are you defining self, anyway? Do you think perception alone is enough to establish a self; that you don't need some amount of metacognition or emotions about your perceptions? If a being has no predictable reaction that isn't due to instinct or programming, does it have a self?

I would imagine that if a being is conscious, then they have a self, even if they behave entirely randomly. This doesn't mean that the self requires consciousness. It's just that for human beings, no awareness of anything equals no self. For example, to me, the concept of self doesn't apply to those who are brain dead. I think an awareness of the self might play a role in establishing a "self."