• Brett
    After reading this can someone suggest where this would fit on the philosophy spectrum. For instance who should I read in relation to this?

    My interest is in the image, which is the idea (mine) of the thing

    The reality behind it doesn’t really interest me

    Except what I project onto it

    The world is interesting in relation to the thing

    the sort of feelings and ideas it elicits

    the connections I make between this thing and another

    how those ideas and feelings take shape

    Then I’m interested in the other thing that formed some sort of connection
  • Josh Alfred
    When is the self not an image? People appear to be what is seen of them.

    Aristotle wrote, "You are what you do repeatedly." Myself, I say "You are your own regularity of experience." And. agreeing with Aristotle again, that "actions define character."

    Introspectively, you may find within your self a passion, a flame that ignites and wants to burn away your energies doing a specific something, or a general something, as in being in the medical field providing health services to people.

    When it comes to species of being you are, you are a human. To understand your humanity look to the philosophies of all the great humanists.

    I hope this provides some starting point for understanding your self and its image.
  • Mww

    The idea of the thing, the “I” that I am, is the transcendental object, the only concept without a representation belonging to it. We cannot represent to ourselves the “I” because it is the “I” trying to think of one, which is entirely circular and hence uninformative.

    The ideal of the “I” is that is at the same time, both subject and object of reason itself. It is the subject of all “I am...” or “I think...”, etc, propositions, and it is also the representational object of the contents of consciousness such that all the blanks of the “I am...” or “I think...”, etc., are filled in by it, all such objects belong to me alone. In short, it is like, I am determined by all those things that are mine, or, I can only think those things that are mine to think.

    The fit on the philosophical spectrum is....transcendental idealism.

    Bring your own salt.
  • Brett
    Well, once again I’ve managed to muddy the waters of my thoughts.

    I wasn’t actually referring to myself. When I talk about my interest in the image I mean something of interest to myself, outside of myself. Though I’m aware of the representationslist view that objects in the world are reflected by ideas in the mind.

    For instance, the subject/image of Bob Dylan. I’m not interested in what he eats, where he lives, or even what he thinks, which is what I refer to as the reality. I’m interested in the image/idea of Bob Dylan that he has created for himself, and the one we perceive, which is also a reality and the one that interests me.
    So the world, everything that makes some connection, is interesting in relation to that idea of who or what he is. In this case a conduit for American music going right back to folk music, but influenced by all aspects of history.

    When I asked ‘Who am I, what am I?’ I meant it in the sense of what branch of thinking, philosophy, ideas, etc, would this way of interacting with the world find itself.

    The fit on the philosophical spectrum is....transcendental idealism.Mww

    Thanks for that. Does my explanation change anything?
  • I like sushi
    That’s basically the “foundation” of thought behind phenomenology.
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.