JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Varios

Navega una corriente de discusiones aleatorias.
8/24/2016 12:49:28 AM
3

Philosophy of the Self

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self]What are we?[/url] Are we a collection of compounds and molecules? Are we a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul]soul[/url]? Historically, there have been a multitude of ways people have defined the self. If we are not a soul, then what are we? Are we simply our body? Our we our actions? A collection of memories? If we are a soul, what is the soul? Is it separate from the body or dependent on it? Plato believed the soul to be the mind, an incorporeal object that lives on after the death of the body. According to Aristotle the soul not is a object, but an activity of the body. The soul of an ax is cutting, as that is what an ax does. Some say that the soul is not a physical aspect from the body, but dwells within it. Another school of thought believes that the soul and body live on entirely different levels of existence, unconnected, but experience the same stimulation. What do you think we are? Are we our body, a soul, or something else entirely? Tell us what you think and why you think it.

Publicando en idioma:

 

Pórtate bien. Echa un vistazo a nuestro Código de conducta antes de publicar tu mensaje. Cancelar Editar Crear escuadra Publicar

  • Hello my excellent friend, I am glad to see someone else who is interested in examining life, and all its thought-provoking questions. Moreover, I agree with Kierkegaard's, as well as the general existentialist persepctive on the self; namely, a "relation relating to itself," a "nothingness," a "constant state of becoming," and finally a "contradiction." (These aforesaid interpretations come from, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Heidegger/Nietzsche respectively). Why do I prefer these interpretations you might wonder? Because the self never seems to be something static/unchanging in any genuine sense, hence it can be a difficult, if not impossible concept to grasp (fully anyway). Additionally, the self [as far as I believe] must be thought of in a way that precedes even [i]a priori[/i] principles and faculties one may consider to be part of the structure of the mind, for these aforesaid faculties must be in reference to [b]something[/b], whether it be a nothingness or something else, insofar as it is the absolute primordial aspect of subjectivity [i.e. the self is that which experiences]. In other words, when you think about this seriously, it is incorrect to say something like; "I have a soul" Not because a soul does not exist, but because if we consider the soul to literally be the subject, the nothingness [the consciousness that ecperiences] then the "I" in the proposition is allready the soul. Thus it seems one runs into an absurdity, or circular reasoning. In other words you can't have possession of yourself as if you somehow got outside yourself, you just ARE yourself. I hope to hear your thoughts, and I am very happy to share mine with those curious individuals who see the beauty in philosophical examination!

    Publicando en idioma:

     

    Pórtate bien. Echa un vistazo a nuestro Código de conducta antes de publicar tu mensaje. Cancelar Editar Crear escuadra Publicar

  • No, this is Patrick.

    Publicando en idioma:

     

    Pórtate bien. Echa un vistazo a nuestro Código de conducta antes de publicar tu mensaje. Cancelar Editar Crear escuadra Publicar

    1 Respuesta
    • (•_•) <) )-- Philosophy??? / \ [spoiler] ⊂_ヽ   \\ _ \( •_•) F    < ⌒ヽ U    /   へ\ C     /  / \\ K     レ ノ   ヽ_つ DIS I'M  / / O  / /| U  ( (ヽ T  | |、\   | 丿 \ ⌒)   | |  ) / `ノ )  Lノ (_// [/spoiler]

      Publicando en idioma:

       

      Pórtate bien. Echa un vistazo a nuestro Código de conducta antes de publicar tu mensaje. Cancelar Editar Crear escuadra Publicar

    No se te permite acceder a este contenido.
    ;
    preload icon
    preload icon
    preload icon