I don't know exactly how Allison would respond to this. I suspect he would say something like "I think my interpretation is better grounded than alternatives, and I am prepared to defend that claim even if it is ultimately not coercively demonstrable by appeal to neutral, public criteria." — Esse Quam Videri

Hmm, almost anyone can make that point and then go on to assert virtually anything about a given matter with impunity.

There are few things more tedious than debates about the meaning of Bible verses, so I apologise for even raising Mark, which interestingly never presents us with a resurrected Christ.

With the resurrection, God vindicates the executed one. The system that killed him is exposed and violence is judged, not justified. Seen in this light the meaning of the resurrection becomes: "liberation is costly because the world violently resists it — and God sides with the one who bears that cost". That is not blood-fetishism, but moral realism. — Esse Quam Videri

I’m not convinced by this account, but it’s nicely argued. Perhaps it's a bit too small to fully explain the significance of the crucifixion, or why an omnipotent God would find it necessary to undergo such a ritual to make a point about violence that seems largely lost on the religion inspired by the story; particularly given the extreme brutality the Church has employed over the centuries in imposing its vision.

But I’ll include this in my list of potential interpretations and, in time, perhaps further material will emerge that will make sense of this story. Maybe we need a competition for the best interpretation of the story. Apologies to we should probably stop here.

I think such matters boil down to intersubjective agreement. This is never unanimous, there are always dissenters, and the mores or systems we have, whether informal codes of conduct or formal laws, were built up over time. Some are now obsolete, some are too weak, and some are simply silly. The question is whether we think people would behave respectfully towards each other without the law.

Some might consider them related. :wink:

Yes, as I said earlier, the resurrection is subject to as many critical interpretations as Moby Dick. I suppose that suggests the matter isn’t really about uncovering “truth”, but about an aesthetic response to a narrative, shaped by time, culture and whatever values you hold.

Nicely worded. Thanks. The issue with these sorts of interpretations is that they remind me of differing readings of Moby Dick or any great novel.

The New Testament sometimes uses sacrificial imagery, but that imagery is metaphorical, drawn from Jewish covenantal language and morally reworked, not mechanically applied. When early Christians say Jesus “gave himself,” the emphasis is on self-giving, not divine requirement. A key shift happens here: God is not the one demanding blood; humans are the ones shedding it. That’s the inversion many later atonement theories obscure.

If the story ended on Friday the cross would simply be another example of justified brutality: suffering would be ennobled and violence would win.

But the resurrection functions as a reversal of meaning: the executed one is vindicated, the judgment of history is overturned, the logic that “might makes right” is exposed as false. — Esse Quam Videri

Well, we know what Nietzsche thought of this framing: that it valorised suffering and weakness and distorted life. Not that I’m a fan of his work.

Earlier you used the term reductive to critique my comments (and this isn’t intended as any kind of attack, just a friendly word game), but couldn’t it be said that this formulation is also reductive, in that it ignores the contours of the text and reduces the story to ethical symbolism?

Plenty of other versus to draw from, but when I read key passages like Mark 10:45:

“For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." I feel ritual sacrifice is central to the story.

Anyway, don't want to distract from the thread's main purpose. Perhaps we need a separate thread on the philosophical meaning of the crucifixion, which I'm sure will range from the prosaic to the exotic.

Where do we find morality? I know there are laws.

Again, I would say that this is probably overly reductionistic and perhaps even a bit uncharitable. — Esse Quam Videri

Well, I did point out that there were “innumerable” other interpretations so not necessarily.

The crucifixion (and the resurrection) were seen primarily as a symbolic condemnation of violence, not a sacralization of it. — Esse Quam Videri

Really? How so? One only has to look as the Christian tradition of self-flagellation, not to mention conservative Catholic, Mel Gibson’s The Passion to see how central suffering and bloody sacrifice are to notions of atonement for many believers. Suffering seems to be a path to redemption. I’m not saying that’s all there is, I’m asking how else can this be understood without resorting to idiosyncratic and poetic interpretations? What was the point of the crucifixion story, it seems incoherent?

In the Baptist tradition I grew up in, Jesus had to die to save us. His death leads to forgiveness and reconciliation. How so, I don’t think we were ever taught.

I'm guessing that Allison would concede that his affinity for Christianity is rooted in his cultural background. — Esse Quam Videri

That said, he also seems to think that the Christian tradition captures something unique that helps him to make sense of the world in a way not replicated by other traditions, and that the resurrection plays a role in that. — Esse Quam Videri

I think the second quote is an articulation of the first. It would make sense for the religion of one's cultural background to capture something the others don’t. Not that the reverse isn’t sometimes true for some people.

I’d be curious about the resurrection’s importance.

I have never understood the resurrection story, or, as some put it: God sacrificed Himself to Himself to save us from Himself because of a rule He made Himself.

That may be a bit glib, but the blood sacrifice element never made sense to me. The fact Jesus could walk away from it just demonstrated how little was sacrificed, he was omnipotent to begin with. No doubt there are innumerable theological exegeses to offer to redeem (sorry) this account.

Oh dear... go well, Wayfarer, we'll miss you. :up::up:

There are no rational grounds for believing this to be true. Religion, in general, deals with this successfully and easily overcomes i — Astorre

I think many belief systems cheerfully overcome facts: that’s a function of belief systems, whether religious or not. I think this applies to football teams and schools of literary criticism just as much as it does to Christianity.

My own answer is to aim for balance and try to be aware of what is happening inside. I also think (and this is also a personal choice) that one's emotions don't matter much to others, so keep them in check. :wink: I do think reason has a role and is important to try to weed out what is simple prejudice and habit from what is useful.

How does this impact Christianity in light of the OP? Do we have sufficient reason to think that Jesus was God and died for our sins? Personally, my conclusion is no. But I have never thought that an old book asserting something is, in itself, a reliable tool in the first place, regardless of what can be proven historically.

Allison would likely reject he NOMA label. — Esse Quam Videri

I'm sure he would, it just seemed to be a similar formulation with history standing in for science.

I often wonder, in such cases, why Christianity rather than Hinduism, Islam or Buddhism. When read deeply, they too offer vast contemplative opportunities. But it seems to be that Hindu children tend to see visions of Krishna in the woods, while Christian children see Mary by the river.

This is probably an unconscious response to your honesty. — Astorre

Thank you. I'm not honest so much as limited in scope.

By calling atheism "anti-religion," I'm declaring that it is the same construct for understanding the world as religiosity. The only difference is that a religious person (religious, not a sincere believer) constructs their understanding of the world by allowing for the presence of God, whereas an atheist constructs their understanding of the world by consciously excluding God. — Astorre

Again, that may apply to some forms of atheism, but it is not a sufficiently consistent line of thought.

What you may be thinking of is secular humanism, which is a more developed system and often presents itself as an alternative to religion.

Why have you drawn attention to yourself? I — Astorre

I hope I draw attention to others. I enjoy hearing what other people believe and why. That, to me, is the unique appeal of this forum: engaging with those beliefs. I’m not particularly attached to my own views; they are what they are largely because I have not found other beliefs to hold.

As for me personally, neither is surprising, since I construct my understanding of the world based on feelings. — Astorre

I tend to think that those who derive satisfaction from rationality or whatever else, do so because it ultimately appeals to them emotionally. Most of our beliefs are likely arrived at because they align with our feelings, with rational explanations often supplied afterward as ad hoc justifications.

With regards to (3) specifically he seems to say that belief in the resurrection is more akin to committing to a total vision of reality or interpreting history through a larger horizon. He often frames belief as a reasonable risk in light of the moral vision of Jesus, the coherence of Christian hope and the way the resurrection belief "fits" into a total viewpoint, etc. — Esse Quam Videri

Forgive my quick response. Sounds like Allison holds to a variation of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria between history and faith. I think there are a lot of games people can play to preserve a belief in a system. I met a Christian once who said Christ was a myth but he “believed” Christianity anyway because he liked the contemplative aspects of the faith and the hymns. Perhaps not much different to the Marxist who thinks history proves Marx wrong but the hope for a classless society and workers paradise keeps him committed to the Movement.


When someone talks of Jesus’ moral vision like this, of hope, etc, it does seem likely that they were raised and socialised in a Christian culture and ultimately captured by one version of that vision.

Why doesn't an atheist miss a single thread about Christianity? — Astorre

I’m interested in all religion; always have been. It's an easy subject to engage with given its ubiquity around the planet and it's influence on geopolitics. But I'm interested in a lot of subjects.

At the same time, I'd like to ask you personally: do you think atheism differs from indifference? — Astorre

It depends on the atheist. A common mistake some people make is to treat atheism as a worldview. It isn’t, it’s simply a claim about one’s position on gods. I know atheists who believe in the occult, ghosts, and other paranormal phenomena. So atheism isn’t necessarily connected to skepticism. Some atheists are conservative and some are progressive, so there's that too.

An atheist always needs to be convinced of atheism, whereas someone who is indifferent doesn't. — Astorre

Again depends. I think for many atheists it isn’t really a conviction. A conviction of what, exactly? For many, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. Contemporary atheists are more likely to say they don’t believe in gods rather than claim that there are no gods. Generally this is called an agnostic atheist since atheism goes to belief not knowledge. Of course some philosophers take issue with this formulation. That said, how can one be “convinced” of a lack of belief? You either believe or you don’t. What you may be is "unconvinced" that there are gods. I think it's well understood that there are hard atheists and soft atheists and atheists who are without any philosophical interest.

Yes, fair point.

You've moved to a teleological account. Teleology explains what counts as flourishing. It does not explain why flourishing is obligatory. — Banno

Yes, that seems fair. I guess the more observant among us would probably say: surely no one would willingly go against God if they had certain knowledge or faith?

In addition, one cannot act otherwise than in accord with the structure of reality. Both kicking the pup and feeding it are possible; Either is "in accordance with the structure of reality itself". "Acting in accordance with the structure of reality itself" tells us nothing about which to choose. — Banno

That made me laugh. I'll need to think about it.

A real founder doesn’t make miracle reports automatically credible. So, I’m not relying on “Jesus wasn’t real.” I’m asking whether the testimony for a bodily resurrection is strong enough even if we assume some historical origin. — Sam26

Absolutely and it's clear that this is your argument. No problem there.

On the Gospels, the anonymity and the gap in time matter here, not because “anonymous” means “false,” but because it complicates firsthand character, traceability, and corroboration — Sam26

Yes. For me, it has always been a question of whether we have good reason to accept these stories and my answer has always been no. Setting history aside, there are many contemporary accounts of Indian gurus healing the sick or performing miracles. But does that mean people are actually healing the sick or performing miracles? No.

And yes, the “Legend” option is relevant. It’s one of the ordinary alternatives that testimony has to be able to resist if it’s going to rise above conviction. Legends don’t require fraud. They require time, transmission, interpretive pressure, and communities that preserve meaning even when details shift. — Sam26

Yes I think this is well phrased.

I think it is useful to identify that religious stories are not necessarily generated by malevolent people seeking to manipulate others and lie abotu truth claims. Intersubjective communities build stories and traditions over time.

Even granting a stable core, “Jesus died, the followers proclaimed he was raised, and there were claims of appearances,” the consistency question turns on what happens when we ask for recoverable particulars. — Sam26

I know this is a different strand, but I don’t understand how the resurrection is supposed to be useful in the first place. Let’s assume it is true. Why would an immortal god enact a primitive blood sacrifice and ruin a weekend just to free people from rules he himself created? Why not simply appear and set people straight? It seems unnecessarily convoluted: if the goal is to guide or save humanity, there are far clearer ways to communicate or intervene. The story reads less like a practical solution and more like a patchwork of old religious myths woven into a narrative.

But the result is to remove any normative value from what is good, and to make it a mere fact - the will of god. The account fails to explain normativity. — Banno

Now, I’m no Thomist, but if goodness flows from God’s very nature, then, I suspect, normativity isn’t removed because acting rightly is acting in accordance with the structure of reality itself. Moral “oughts” are binding, not because God commands them, but because they reflect the very nature of goodness. But we could easily get lost in the metaphysical weeds here, and as an atheist, I feel somewhat silly trying to articulate this position.

Forgive my meandering response. From what I read, that all seems fair and seems to come down to “a book says a thing”. I wonder though, even if there were a couple of witnesses would this resolve the matter? How would we establish, centuries later, if a given witness is truthful or mistaken?

As I said on a different thread, isn’t it generally understood that, resurrection aside, there are no eyewitness accounts of whoever it was who inspired the Jesus story? Was it one person or more than one? Or are the mythicists right in saying it is all fictional? I am inclined to think there may have been some historical origin to the story. But it's accepted that Muhammad was a real historical person, and that does not mean he literally cut the moon in two or rode a flying horse.

The Gospels were written many years after the events they describe by anonymous authors and survive only as copies of translations of earlier copies. The names attached to them were applied later by church tradition. I was taught this, not by atheists, but by Christian lecturers, who were not fundamentalists.

You know the old C. S. Lewis “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” argument? many have found it interesting that he left out a fourth option: Legend.

Yep. It's a common Christian response to the Euthyphro.

Why ought we adopt that game? — Banno

Well, if for classical theism this is how God is understood then some of the traditional arguments put forward by atheists fall short.

A theist might say that god as goodness itself functions as a brute fact. You and I might consider this unconvincing. No doubt there is a vast library of scholarship affirming this concept.

all morality comes from our evolution
— Questioner

which passes for popular wisdom in today's culture. — Wayfarer

There’s probably a more charitable way to look at this: if we read it as suggesting that the origins of moral behavior may be found in our evolving together as a social species: strength through cooperation, empathy and love.

Even if we had before us is the undoubted word of god, it does not follow that we ought do as he says.

It remains open for us to do as the book says, or not. — Banno

Can I check something with you?

Whether we ‘ought’ to obey God could be held to depend on the language game we are playing. The original claim assumes a game in which God is just an agent issuing commands, so obedience is an open quesion. But if we adopt the Christian language game in which God is the embodiment of goodness, then ‘obeying God’ is synonymous with acting morally. In this framework, to refuse God’s commands would be to act against goodness itself. The supposed gap between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ vanishes: the very definitions we use make obedience obligatory by definition.

Thoughts on this?

That we have evolved in a certain way tells us nothing about how we ought behave. Even supposing we are disposed to act in a certain way by evolution, it does not follow that we ought act in that way. It remains open that we ought act in a way contrary to evolution.

The second is the more general point that while we can find out how things are by looking around at the world, we can't use that method to find out how things ought to be. More generally, while science tells us how things are, it cannot tell us how things ought be. — Banno

Interesting this hasn't come up.

Can we say the same about God?

Even if we could demonstrate that God exists, it does not follow that we ought to act in any particular way. Is God moral? If we judge by the Bible, that God often behaves monstrously. If we rely on abstract philosophical reasoning, God can be made into almost anything; a benevolent source of all consciousness, or something more ambiguous.

Unless we assume that God will punish or reward us for following divine instructions; a kind of autocrat there is no clear reason to act according to God’s will. In short, the mere fact that God exists does not tell us what we ought to do.

Thoughts?

:up: :up:

I'm currently writing a book Why Christianity Fails using this epistemic model. Specifically, I analyze the testimonial evidence for the resurrection and demonstrate the weakness of the evidence. — Sam26

A digression, perhaps and forgive my tone which is not intended to be strident. Are there not innumerable contributions on variations of this matter already, from Bart Ehrman to Richard Carrier?

Does Christianity fail if the Jesus story can’t be demonstrated? And what does “fail” mean here?

We already know that there’s no eyewitness testimony from the time of Jesus, let alone for a resurrection. The Gospels were written years later by anonymous authors and survive only as copies of translations of earlier copies. We also know that Jews didn’t think much of the preacher's claims. Do we need more on this? I sometimes wonder if debunking the evidence in detail just makes some people take the story more seriously.

Whence this idea that there is a clear demarcation line between online and real life? — baker

I think this is understood. I have also learned this from some people I know and how different they are on line compared to real life. Anonymity promotes a different way of relating for many people. Some might even try on a persona. And I imagine some people are more reasonable on line than they are in life. I'm not arguing that this is true for everyone.

But my original point didn’t rely on this. The observation is that on line we don’t really know who we are talking to, or where they are coming from. And it's clearly easier to pretend on line than it is in real time face-to-face.

Or do you think that people somehow miraculously totally change the way they talk to people when the conversation is face to face?
That online, they, for example, jump to conclusions, but IRL, they dont?? — baker

Some people, yes, but it is not miraculous. If people are not responsible or identifiable for what they say, they may behave differently; they may be disinhibited. I also believe that online behaviour can promote aggressive discussion and tribalism, which might reduce a person’s capacity to be reasonable and to accept different views.

And part of the problem is that so many members of the public no longer seem to care for truth or accuracy, or only in 'my truth,' while the rest seem to be ideologically driven, self-righteous partisans of the left or right. So what hope do we have?

there is a significant percentage who hold cartoon views of religion and their arguments often fail to understand the positions theists may hold.
— Tom Storm

Understood. — Questioner

:up: :up:

I'm sorry, what criticism was that? — Questioner

The idea that formed the basis of our discussion, that empathy came first and then religion, doesn’t really hold up as a critique or as an accurate depiction of what many Christians actually believe. That is what I was trying to point out, though I suppose it doesn’t matter much.

For me, what matters most is trying to understand the logic and reasoning of people whose views I don’t share. It’s easy to assume we have a winning argument because it seems sound to us. But the problem is that it often rests on assumptions (like scientism) that don’t align with the other person’s worldview.

All your other points aren’t linked to the discussion we were having and are separate lines of reasoning which have been explored on this forum a trillion times. You don’t need to convince me that religion is often wrong and can cause harm.

Yes, there are some good lessons from theistic texts. I think also that you underestimate atheists when you posit that they all blindly follow Dawkins. If anything, atheists are independent thinkers. — Questioner

Where did I say they all blindly follow Dawkins? I’ve been involved in freethinker atheist circles for 40 years; there is a significant percentage who hold cartoon views of religion and their arguments often fail to understand the positions theists may hold.

Where did I say I was an atheist? — Questioner

Where did I say you were an atheist? The criticism you provided was a standard atheist talking point. I've commented on it from this perspective. And it’s not as though atheists don’t share views with other philosophical orientations. A number of Buddhists I know hold similar views.

How arrogant to think that only Christians could come up with the idea of values being imprinted upon the heart! — Questioner

But again, that’s an atheist-style riposte that many Christian thinkers would find amusing. From the position of classical theism the critique that other religions also have moral views misses the point. The point is all morality comes from the same transcendent source.

Now, I wouldn’t think this is necessarily understood as a position of arrogance (although Dawkins and Hitchens would probably characterise it that way); for many Christians it is a straightforward claim about how humans came to be and about the nature of human beings.

There are also more nominal Christians who would hold that all religions are broadly equivalent, while still regarding morality as reflecting God’s nature rather than existing independently of it. From this perspective, the classic Euthyphro dilemma — which asks whether something is good because God commands it or God commands it because it is good — is avoided, because goodness is understood as grounded in God’s very nature rather than being arbitrary or external to God. I don’t find this argument fully convincing, but I respect it.

The bottom line is that atheistic arguments that try to defeat theism by pointing out that non-theists have morality, or that there was morality before Moses’ clay tablets, often miss the mark. But you may think differently.

1) What we call immorality are practices by others which we aren’t able to understand in terms that allow us to justify them according to our own values. As a result, we blame them for our own puzzlement.
2) Cultural history takes the form of a slow development of interpersonal understanding such that we progressively improve our ability to make sense of the motivations of others in ways that don’t require our condemning them, precisely because we see their limitations as having to do with social understanding rather than arbitrary malicious intent. Advances in the social sciences in tandem with philosophy and the arts contribute to this development. — Joshs

I like this formulation a lot.

So, you are saying that goodness comes from God and we know this because the Bible tells us it's so?

I think the more likely explanation is that we evolved something called biological altruism. — Questioner

I am an atheist, I am not saying this as a believer. I am trying to provide a basic sketch of classical theism’s understanding of the good.

It's useful for atheists to understand the range of religious beliefs properly and not go after cartoon theism, which is the kind of problem we face when people like Dawkins seem to think that fundamentalism is all there is.

I am saying that atheist criticisms such as the ones you provided about morality do not affect the narrative tabled by many Christians, for reasons I have described.

The inerrancy of Bible is irrelevant to many atheist talking points. Note also that many Christians consider the Bible to be allegorical, not literal.

It's likely borrowed from Paul writing in Romans where he says even of ignorant gentiles that morality is "written on their hearts".
— Tom Storm

No, as a people of oral traditions, their history and moral codes, ideas of justice, etc. were engraved on their hearts long before the Europeans came along. They did not need to "borrow" the phrase from the Europeans. — Questioner

You can't say "no" the best you can do is say, perhaps it's this... and then provide evidence. The phrase “written on the heart” is classic Christian formulation. I said it was likely to be borrowed, but we cannot say for certain. Neither can you. But perhaps those tribal people you referenced did not use precisely that Christian expression at all and said something similar. We cannot determine the true nature of that quote, or even if it was actually uttered, from this forum.

The fact that religions seem to contain similar ideas leads perennialists to conclude that spiritual truth is the same across all traditions. Many academic Christians study other religions and regard them as also containing truth about the transcendent.

There's not staggeringly different, that’s why I mentioned famous and popular publishers from 100 years ago who printed lies and defamations every single day. And it wasn't by omission, it was blatant phoney narratives. Hearst and Pulitzer famously made up atrocities during the Spanish-American War of 1898, helping to sway the public. And God knows how many individuals were destroyed by fake news. Leo Frank was famously lynched by a mob when newspapers wrongly accused him of murder in 1913, and in the 1980s there was the notorious Central Park Five case where media reported on the guilt and criminal intent of some Latino and Black kids who were later proven innocent. There are endless historical examples of this. Mainstream media often used to print lies and untruths with cavalier disregard for the truth. Which is not the same thing as saying that all journalism has always been bad.

But still depends on an external source for empathy - a god - and empathy is not that but something we developed as we evolved as a social species. — Questioner

I don’t think that’s right by their reasoning because under this view (Calvin, Anslem, Aquinas) all goodness, in whatever form it takes, is grounded in God’s nature rather than existing independently of it. When we care for others, when we have empathy, we are participating in or responding to that nature as it is reflected in us. A developed expression of this idea is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan, where moral concern or empathy is not confined to one’s own community but is extended even to detestable outsiders.

I recall a quote from an 18th century Indigenous person - who said to a colonizer - "You white folk need a Big Book to tell you what is right, but what is right is engraved upon my heart." — Questioner

Interesting that you wrote it like this. The idea that morality is engraved upon our hearts is a common frame used by Christians, who argue that regardless of the ten commandments, morality is part of God’s nature within us, which is how many of them explain an atheist having capacity for goodness. It's likely borrowed from Paul writing in Romans where he says even of ignorant gentiles that morality is "written on their hearts".

Empathy came first, religion followed.

But religion got itself all tied up with all kinds of hypocrisies. And, humans just got smarter, and reject fairy tales as fact. — Questioner

Yes, although some religious folk will say that since goodness emanates directly from God’s nature, we are good because it reflects God’s nature, with empathy being a part of the divine character. This would predate religion.

I’ve generally held that theists have no objective basis for moral beliefs. A key indicator of this is that even within a single religion all they can do is disagree on most moral issues. No one can demonstrate which god is real, or what that god believes about morality. It's all contested interpretations. So what we have are vehement disagreements between believers about what’s good. God doesn’t solve any problems when it comes to making moral decisions.

There's always been a war on truth in the media, a feature I’ve observed for decades, and it was even worse when we had consistent enemies like godless communists, war protesters, and drug users to hate with impunity. It’s somewhat more expertly organised than before, using tools borrowed from earlier sensationalist, untruthful media barons like Beaverbrook, Hearst, Pulitzer, Harmsworth, and, more recently, Murdoch.

we need to remind those who give us news that their job requires them to investigate the stories, vet them, and then tell us the whole story without bias. — Athena

I guess I’ve never entirely subscribed to the view that there is a truth which mirrors nature, or a position on an event that is without bias. I agree that stories are often slanted in particular directions and that they might suit a particular narrative, but I recognise that my version of a given story or event does the same thing. Because it reflects my values, I tend to think of it as “more truthful”.

What I want from the media are stories that reflect complexity and, as you say, something like a 'whole story', with context and a sense of balance. But one problem with journalism is that the public enjoys outrage and clickbait. I’m not sure there’s much money in balance. While I don’t think we can remove bias, I think we can do better by providing more sophisticated, less sensationalised accounts of events.

Yes this would seem to be right but I suspect cunning arguments are available against this position. They may already have been stated, but I dip in and out and lack focus.

Got ya. :up::up:

Nice. Thanks.

I think learning to accept and live with the elusive nature of the self/subject/'I' is a fundamental life lesson. — Wayfarer

That's a bit pf a tantalising idea. Are there 2 or 3 aspects of this particularly you can dot point?