I see the self as part psychological traits, part formative experiences and part physiology. Given that psychological traits are mostly innate and formative experiences are the unavoidable side effect of being alive I don't see how noself could even work.
And physiological states can vary and change how we see things. For example a weeklong water fast temporarily killed my libido and made me aware for the first time of how big of an influence it constantly had on my mind.
The concept of noself seems to me like a judgement error based on disregarding how different people actually are from each other and ignoring how stable many of our defining traits are throughout our lives. Of course noticing that implies using observational knowledge which is frowned upon by philosophers and theologians.
I don't see the need for the “self” to be permanent, causal, or coherent in order to exist. Given that it's an attribute of a living being it is normal that both continuity and change will be present in somewhat predictable patterns relating to aging and life experiences.
It seems like an indictment of the noself position that you can only use it therapeutically in certain cases and have to ignore it in others. If nobody exists that fact is going to undermine basically any reason to do anything, and if you’re accepting noself whenever you feel insecure about your identity and want to relieve yourself of those worries but go right back to accepting selves when you’re considering your goals in life or how you should treat a friend then it seems like it bottoms in a coping strategy for a certain type of anxiety. Why attach a metaphysical position with such radical implications to that basic self-help strategy?
I see the self as part psychological traits, part formative experiences and part physiology. Given that psychological traits are mostly innate and formative experiences are the unavoidable side effect of being alive I don't see how noself could even work.
And physiological states can vary and change how we see things. For example a weeklong water fast temporarily killed my libido and made me aware for the first time of how big of an influence it constantly had on my mind.
The concept of noself seems to me like a judgement error based on disregarding how different people actually are from each other and ignoring how stable many of our defining traits are throughout our lives. Of course noticing that implies using observational knowledge which is frowned upon by philosophers and theologians.
I don't see the need for the “self” to be permanent, causal, or coherent in order to exist. Given that it's an attribute of a living being it is normal that both continuity and change will be present in somewhat predictable patterns relating to aging and life experiences.
The Baron talks about this…
It seems like an indictment of the noself position that you can only use it therapeutically in certain cases and have to ignore it in others. If nobody exists that fact is going to undermine basically any reason to do anything, and if you’re accepting noself whenever you feel insecure about your identity and want to relieve yourself of those worries but go right back to accepting selves when you’re considering your goals in life or how you should treat a friend then it seems like it bottoms in a coping strategy for a certain type of anxiety. Why attach a metaphysical position with such radical implications to that basic self-help strategy?
>If nobody exists that fact is going to undermine basically any reason to do anything
No?
Your life and goals aren’t affected by the existence of people?
...I don't you think you understand what I am advocating.