• unenlightened
    1.6k
    I don't think so, or not quite, anyway. It seems that both the views you identify start with the ego. If I were you I wouldn't start from here.

    Rather I want to question where the idea of self, and the idea of interiority come from. Once they are given, solipsism becomes possible, the other becomes possible, morality/immorality becomes possible.

    How (and why) does one come to draw the boundaries of self, so as to separate self from world? It seems to me to be just as mysterious as the drawing of national boundaries. One side of the river is self, and the other side is foreign, but if you follow the river back to its source, there is no division.

    It seems to make sense to say that the world is alive; not that it is nothing but life, but there is life in the world that is the world's life. So there is awareness that is the world's awareness. So from that source, how do you and I arrive at this downstream position of radical separation? Everyone wants to say that the source is imaginary, and the boundaries are real. Everyone except me.
  • unenlightened
    1.6k
    I just stole this from wosret in the shout box.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_your_words_may_predict_your_future_mental_health#t-5899

    Suppose this algorithmic neuro-babble has some validity; that the nature of consciousness develops in historical time. Then there is strong evidence that the social mind is prior to the individual mind which emerges from it. And it turns out I'm not the only one after all.
  • Wosret
    3.1k
    I posted it because what you said above reminded me of it, so really you posted it. That's how this works now.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    2.7k
    Rather I want to question where the idea of self, and the idea of interiority come from. Once they are given, solipsism becomes possible, the other becomes possible, morality/immorality becomes possible.unenlightened

    The problem is that interiority and externality necessarily arise together. They are conceptual only, and both rely on each other. Like positive and negative, they are just opposites.

    How (and why) does one come to draw the boundaries of self, so as to separate self from world? It seems to me to be just as mysterious as the drawing of national boundaries. One side of the river is self, and the other side is foreign, but if you follow the river back to its source, there is no division.unenlightened

    So there is no real boundary between interior and exterior as they are both inherently tied together within understanding, as opposing directions. One is not separated from the other, they are tied together in conception. But as two directions, up and down, toward the positive, or toward the negative, hotter or colder, they are very real. Therefore we can look toward the external, or toward the internal, and these are very real directions, without any real boundary between the internal and the external. They are just principles of orientation.

    We can say that the river has a beginning and the river has an end, but the only boundary between these two is the river itself. Now the river is a real boundary. It is not the boundary between the two sides, it is the boundary between the beginning and the end, just like the self is a real boundary. It is the boundary between the internal and the external. There is no boundary between self and other, the self is the boundary, the boundary between internal and external. Therefore the boundary is not real unless the subject, as self, is real, because the boundary is completely subjective, arbitrarily produced by the subject. The real boundary is not between self and other, as the self is the real boundary between the internal unknowns and the external unknowns. Remove the subject, and there is no boundary, no internal, no external, no beginning nor ending. And as much as these opposing terms are imaginary, without the individual imagining them, there is nothing without them.
  • unenlightened
    1.6k
    We can say that the river has a beginning and the river has an end, but the only boundary between these two is the river itself.Metaphysician Undercover

    We can say it, but does it mean anything? I would; rather say that the beginning and end of things are their boundaries rather than that things are the boundaries of their beginning and end. It just sounds less like nonsense.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    2.7k

    Perhaps it sounds like nonsense, but you are the one suggesting that drawing boundaries is not a sensible way to proceed. So now saying that the boundaries of a thing are the beginning and ending of the thing is not compatible with what you have proposed.

    You propose that boundaries are not real. I've shown you how to conceive of this, and that is to make the boundary purely subjective. This means that the boundary is the property of the subject, the subject is the boundary. And this is consistent with what you say, that the subject is not real, and that boundaries are not real. There is nothing here to prevent us from saying that the subject is a boundary. We still have a problem though, because now nothing is real, as everything is incomprehensible without some sort of boundaries. So you need a principle whereby a subject, a boundary, or both, can be real.
  • creativesoul
    1.5k
    If meaning is social then so too is language. If language is the basis for individuality, then individuality has a social basis. I think that that or something like that is an argument in favor of Un's position here...
  • Cabbage Farmer
    141
    I agree. Also, the relationship between individual, environment, and group forms the basis of a continuous, circular, process of communication which produces cultural development.Galuchat

    How would you characterize the relation between "individual" and "group"? Is this just a way of speaking about the relations of various individuals in various groupings, associations, communities?

    Is the "group" something more than a collection?
156789Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.