1 - Metaphysics: An Inner Discussion

A Discussion of Self

Introduction

   I would, as my first real post, like to discuss self. I will take the premise that I do indeed exist in some way and that there is a body that I occupy. Then I will look at the views of Early Modern to Contemporary philosophers starting with Descartes, this is the first of a many part series, which I will wrap up by showing how I think, before and after I examine some historical and contemporary figures for ideas.

An Unorganized View

   Since I occupy a body, this body must be located somewhere, if not here, then perhaps I am in a dream and I am imagining that I am writing a blog post right now. If my current conception of myself is true and I am indeed writing a blog post right now, then eventually I will finish this action and move on to something else, perhaps by falling asleep on the keyboard. I also may take that my self might die along with my body, however, terrifying that may sound. In fact, maybe I am some sort of permanent life form that formulates ways to entertain itself by living imaginary "lives" within it's world.

   However I actually work can be confusing though, so maybe I should attack it at a different angle and presume that my perception does exist. If that is so, then the self is a sort of "thinking thing" that does the work of decision making and reasoning for my body, which has an end. This "thinking thing" is a sort of ruling faculty that does not only talk to itself but, attempts to communicate with other thinking things through a sort of communication interaction. The self tends to think of one perception of this "thinking thing" as the most important of many selves, creating an ego.

   The ego is a perception of your self as a single, decisive one. However, this is rarely the case, often making the self more indecisive than an ego, with multiple voices speaking as a part of the self. Despite this, having a self perceived ego allows a self make decisions on what that self spends it's, perhaps limited, time on. Take for example, my decision to write a blog on philosophy, I think this is useful for me to do, whether or not it actually is, I do not know. Maybe I have created two selves in having one, a sort of de facto self and a de jure self. The de facto self is what the self actually is, whereas the de jure self is only my perception of what my self is. With so many different ways to look at the self, it may be better to look at self as expression of ones' mental state.

Descartes' View

   According to the Meditations On First Philosophy, Descartes came to the conclusion that he is, at least a "thing which thinks" (Descartes, 10). He comes to this conclusion by first setting doubt upon even his most fundamental beliefs and then working to reconstruct them afterwords. He then comes to the further conclusion that the body has little to do with the coming to be of his self. So then, one can look at Descartes' view as that there is some sort of incorporeal soul that is not connected to the body in any sort of permanent way.
   Then he proves to himself that God exists and that there is an important difference between Descartes' imperfect self and God's perfect self (a self that the imperfect self should strive to emulate). Of the things we have though, is free will, that is the ability of the soul to control itself. Upon re-examining his own views on the relationship between the body and self, he comes to the conclusion that there are certain things in the world that sense perception can, to an extent confirm, despite that he posits that self is the only thing we can know with absolute firmness.(Descartes, 32)

---

   Descartes is an interesting fellow and I am compelled to draw conclusions from his. Due to the conclusion that self is the first of a shockingly small number of absolutes one could say becoming as close to God's perfect self as possible would be an important thing, so maybe I in a search for fulfillment should look to ethics? Furthermore, if the relationship between self and body is merely one of the ruling faculty then shouldn't I look to cleanse my soul and only keep my body going? I suppose that this may be an overtly emotional response, but this view is definitely not as fulfilling for me as it was for Descartes. Perhaps Spinoza and Leibniz will be able to provide a more fulfilling view.

---

Bibliography

   Descartes, René. The Philosophical Works of Descartes. Trans. Elizabeth S. Haldane. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1911. Print.

1 - Introduction: the blog & myself

The Blog

   This blog is hopefully going to be an environment that allows for those who participate to grow intellectually. Furthermore, this blog will discuss philosophy, not just in  the strict academic sense but, in a way that allows those who read a deeper understanding of the world we live in and ourselves. To achieve the greatest amount of success in this relatively broad realm of study I am going to break up this and all further posts into a number of categories, though  I do not plan on restricting myself to this rough and initial list I would at least like to set it out.
   First, there is Epistemology, which is concerned with the nature of knowledge and truth. We can think of epistemology as a battle with a few camps that people tend to discuss. The first camp is that of the skeptic; a person who believes that there any very few, if any truths and absolute knowledge to be had. The second camp is that of the dogmatic; a person who ascribes to a set of beliefs and argues for them (however I don't mean to cast those who are dogmatic in a negative light, as skeptics tend to do). Rationalism is the supposition that reasoning is the paramount source of knowledge, and that everything else tends to be fallible. The last basic camp I'll discuss right now is that of the Empiricist; a person who looks to sensory experience to explain human belief.
   Second, there is Logic, which is the study of correct reasoning, we may think of logic as the construction of arguments about other things but, posts about logic and reasoning will come up once in a while. The important thing in this case, is that one should remember that emotion is as important to some arguments as logic and that a correct combination of the two will lead to a more compelling and, perhaps a more useful conclusion.
   Third, there is Metaphysics, the study of existence, time, mind vs. body and what all these things can mean for us. Two classic divisions have come up in the discussion philosophy, cosmology and ontology. Cosmology is the study of the world in a large scope and Ontology is the study of being. Metaphysics has many fields of belief which I will examine at a later date.
   Fourth, there is Ethics and its counterpart, Political philosophy. Ethics is the quest for the "good life" or the best way to live and whether or not this can be found at all. Political philosophy is the discussion of the best ways to rule and how one can apply ethics to the world of politics.
Lastly, I'll have three other categories, that of the extremely interesting history of philosophy, specialized branches of contemporary philosophy such as jurisprudence and a set of introductions to philosophical thought and ideologies.

---

Also, if there are any of you out there who would like to write for the site, as well as read and comment, may email me at my gmail or p2_ace@yahoo.com. 

Myself

I am a university student who has much interest in the world of philosophy, I grew up in Austin, Texas and currently attend Texas State University - San Marcos. I don't think I ought to share much else, if you have any questions about me or the site, you may also email me at p2_ace@yahoo.com.