Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Whoever you were born to be, it would still be you. Why are you the way you are? Buddhists and Hindus say that this is a direct consequence of your merits in previous rebirths. Monotheists would probably say that this is the will of God. Atheists would refer to a combination of circumstances, chance, or predestination, determinism (which does not contradict the Buddhist point of view). In fact, you just couldn't be anyone else.
because a person's perception ends where his body ends. that is you and everyone else are part of a larger consciousness and everyone feels within their own framework
The question(s) is asked under the assumption that the “I” is given as a kind of pure subjectivity, individuality and uniqueness, and it pre-exists to the real, empirical, psychological, personal “I”, in which it only incarnates/reincarnates and recognizes/tries to recognize itself. It is this pre-existence and independence of the “pure self” that condemns the “personal self” to such torments of self-consciousness: Who am I really? Why am I me? Am I me?
Such a logically incorrect doubling of the ” I “and hypostasis of the” pure I ” is the basis not only of this naive but sincere question, but also of a significant number of verbose quasi-religious, parascientific and pseudo-philosophical speculations on this topic. R. Sheckley's remarkable novel “Exchange of Minds” (I recommend it!) can be considered a peculiar, exciting in content and witty in form, a refutation of these fantasies.
One can overcome this (pseudo)problem by noting that the question of the “I” is, first of all, and directly (1) the question of the “asking me” itself and (2) the question of the “I” asking about itself. Thus, the focus of attention is my actual, i.e. here and now established = born in the throes of doubt (consciousness) “personal I”, and not the conditional construction “I in general”, which coincides in content (or correlates) with “my I”, but for some reason taken out-beyond the space – time limits “my life.”
And such an actual self is “not why?”: it has no external basis and reasons that guarantee the necessity of its birth, and even more so the birth of it. It is self-founded and does not appear because of (i.e., ” why?In other words, it is impossible to calculate the probability of its occurrence in advance simply because the probability of what to calculate is unknown? And to ask such a question after the appearance is meaningless, since here the “I” is already valid, and not likely.
But the reality of this ego is open and incomplete: here the ego is not the crown and realization of external causes and possibilities, but causa sui (the cause of itself) and the possibility of actual (i.e., active) self-realization. And the question is relevant here, but rather the question ” Why (for what) me?” and “How (how) am I?”
Something like this 🙂 Good luck in self-discovery! 🙂