1. How many habits/ traits do I have to pick up from another person to stop being myself?
2. If I change to adapt to a new situation, do I stop being my 'self'?
3. How much of my 'self' can be defined only in the context of my environment, based on circumstance, and how much is me, regardless of whether I am isolated or with others? Which of these selves is more critical to my identity?
6 comments:
"The self is nothing more than a screen on a theater projecting the images and stories that life throws at it" Was it Spinoza? I've already forgotten :)
"If your sock develops a hole would it be the same after it's patched with a different wool? How much of your sock is the old one, if the patches keep increasing?", Locke pondered.
To me, the self is something that keeps growing, not necessarily changing. Adapting the self for the "betterment" of the self itself, signifies positive growth. Anything else is a compromise.
I don't really agree with the first quote- I believe there is an intrinsic 'self', even if its purely physical, that exists regardless of what life throws at it.
Locke- If there was no hole, but your sock was growing, picking up bits of wool as it found them- at what point would it stop being identified as the original sock ?
Also..why do we need to identify the sock as the original? Why is it so important to define the self?
When you're a beautiful person on the inside, there is nothing in the world that can change that about you.
I don't really agree with the first quote either, except when the "self" is made analogous to the "immortal soul" that probably only projects a different story everytime, while remaining the same "screen". That's an interesting speculation for it's nice to think of starting from a clean slate, regardless of Karma :)
I think the fundamental point is that human consciousness (self) cannot be measured and fit into any physical entity such as a sock...the self cannot be defined with a beginning, an end, a height, width or a length. It's a growing entity and in that sense, it doesn't maintain any constant state of definition, nor is the definition important. But if the growing entity is plotted against a dimension of time, the continuity of the existence of the same thread, the patterns taken by that thread, defines it's uniqueness.
..Is the self only human consciousness and nothing more/else?
This post is rather(/extremely;)) poorly written I guess, just a random set of thoughts as I was writing other things- So maybe I'll clarify it a little more and re-post..
Briefly, I was pondering bacterial speciation- at what point does one acquire/ change enough genes to be called different from the parental strain? And why is it important to distinguish the two, especially if they are still capable of exchanging genetic material?
So, maybe a more biological essay is in order.. :)
I guess we all do pick up habits/traits, we all are defined in a way but the environment around us. But that doesn't stop us from being ourselves or rather maybe that is what makes is different. This is what the actor Nana Patekar said in one of his interviews recently- "I like you not because of what you are, but what I am when I am with you".
I am not sure if this was inline with what you were discussing here, but something I felt when I read your post and thought should post.
Post a Comment