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?
Lawyers of all countries and times-the main experts on the topic “practical assessment of a person”, say- ” the official person of a person is all his practical actions.”
A person's thoughts are his very personal private life.
My body and I are two different formations, and I can imagine it perfectly and not only imagine it, but also see it. My body consists of seven energy bodies: Rupa-body, Life-prana, Astral body-linga sharira, Animal soul-Kama rupa, Human soul-manas, Spiritual soul-Buddha, Spirit-atman. When I practice Qigong, I see these bodies in certain colors. When I meditate, I come out of my body and feel my ” I ” as a separate element, separated from the body. And so I understand that I am energy and a thinking non-substance. Man – – – it's a mystery!!! With respect.
Do I really exist? Who am I?
Not just the body, not just the character, mind and consciousness. Something else, behind all that facade. I am the void. And completeness. Something that doesn't fit into any framework.
I am Us. Not to separate and separate from each other, but to combine.
The best answer, I think, was given by the hero of Vysotsky Gleb Zheglov – And I just went out for a walk… Who are we really? Just passing characters. and what will be left there?
I'd say I didn't know.
The problem of personal identity is a classic one in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and some other fields of thought. There are many attempts to solve it. For Descartes, for example, “I” is my mind, a thinking substance separate from matter. Hume, on the other hand, believed that if we try to reflect on the essence of our “I”, then all we find is a certain amount of sensations, but no essential subject. According to Hume, there is no “I”other than the flow of sensations. Psychology and sociology are more interested in the social identity of the subject, how the “I” reflects and understands itself in a variety of social contexts.
In general, there are three main questions about personal identity.
What are its criteria? From the proposed solutions: spatial and temporal continuity of the body, identity of the structure, continuity of memory, continuity of personality (character and predispositions), continuity of involvement in social practices. There are strong objections to all these decisions.
Is personal identity substantial, i.e., is there an entity (such as an immortal soul or Cartesian thinking substance) that corresponds to the “I”? According to some philosophers (for example, Descartes mentioned above) – is. According to Hume, no. Hume's point of view is more popular in modern philosophy. But this is a metaphysical question and the position here can be completely arbitrary.
What makes me exactly me, what set of biological, social, cultural, etc. conditions and forces? Modern psychology is more inclined to the fact that it is difficult to single out any one “identity” in a person-rather, he has many identities for different social and behavioral contexts.
Given all this, one might suspect that a formal solution to the identity problem is impossible. In my opinion, it is more correct to treat it pragmatically and solve problems as they arise, and to look at thought experiments like “if a teleporter copies and destroys a person here, and creates a new one there with the accuracy of a molecule, will it be the same person?” simply as entertainment. Therefore, among the criteria of identity, the criterion of continuity of involvement in social practices is the closest to me.
I think I would say that I am the product of a series of accidents from the Big Bang to the meeting of my parents.All living things are like an infection that has appeared in a convenient, fertile, unprotected place.
If the question is perceived by the type: “who is in life?”I think that I am one of the 7 billion gears that interact with each other,built into the huge machine-life system,and whether I will be a rusty,unnecessary gear that slows down work,or a large engine without which the machine-life will fail depends on how I work and improve.
I would answer that I am only one small imperfection, among many others like myself, who is trying with all the forces of his consciousness to understand the great perfection in which we exist and at least a little closer to it.
I would answer: “an ordinary person.”
And I would add that I am aware of all sorts of pseudo-Taoist and pseudo-Buddhist philosophies on this topic, but I do not think that they are of any use, because the ideology of “you are not this, you are not that” is just another funny game of the mind that has nothing to do with Taoism or Buddhism (or any other tradition).