Download May – What is the Nature of `Self`

Greater Manchester Humanists
Humanist Discussion Group
31 May 2016
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF ‘SELF’?
Today we have a whole industry devoted to self-improvement and self-construction. But what is the ‘self’?
Does it change over time? What does this mean for personal responsibility and indeed our own happiness and
contentment?
The Abrahamic superstitions are very clear that the ‘self’ or ‘soul’ retains responsibility for its actions
throughout and beyond life. Certainly it can repent and reform but nevertheless the self exists as an
independent entity. Indeed, Descartes maintained that this was something of which we could be quite certain
– ‘I think, therefore I am’.
But then we might ask where is the thinker behind the thought?
Existentialists maintain that we can and should create and refine ourselves at will. As Sartre put it ‘Existence
precedes Essence’. But we also know that much of our character is genetically determined – so Sartre cannot
be entirely correct.
In contrast David Hume reported that using careful introspection he could not find his own, enduring self. In a
very similar argument Buddhist philosophers deny the existence of an independent, inherently existent self.
Dan Dennett in his book ‘Consciousness Explained’ expresses very similar opinions.
Buddhist philosophers argue that the self is ‘empty of inherent existence’. This does not mean that there is no
self in the conventional, day to day sense. Instead they are saying that there is no self that is unchanging and
independent of other factors. More technically they argue that the self is made up of the ‘five aggregates’ of
material form, feelings, perception, volition and sensory consciousness and that these continuously arise and
cease in an ongoing, ever-changing process. They reach this conclusion though a process of argument and also
observation of thoughts arising and dissolving during meditation. This view is remarkably similar to David
Hume’s and it has been suggested that Hume was influenced by early Jesuit reports of Buddhist Philosophy.
Buddhists maintain that suffering is reduced and compassion increased as a result of dissolving the sense of
self and the associated ‘self-grasping’. To quote Shantideva: ‘All the misery in the world arises from wishing
oneself to be happy and all the happiness in the world arises from wishing others to be happy’. (There is an
obvious objection that concern of others can also create unhappiness - for example worrying about one’s
children. We are told this also arises from self-grasping and dissolves on the development of higher forms of
compassion.)
A summary of Buddhist Philosophy on this subject can be found on the Philosophy Bites Podcast Site at:
http://philosophybites.libsyn.com/graham-priest-on-buddhism-and-philosophy
also: https://player.fm/series/philosophy-bites/shaun-nichols-on-death-and-the-self
The following podcast compares this to the views of David Hume:
http://philosophybites.libsyn.com/alison-gopnik-on-hume-and-buddhism
For a more accurate appreciation of the doctrine of Emptiness from a highly respected Buddhist Lama see:
https://buddhismnow.com/2013/04/27/impermanence-interdependence-and-emptiness-ringu-tulku/
It is worth noting that Buddhists do not deny the existence of a conventional self – they simply say that we are
mistaken as to its true, ‘ultimate’ nature. Appreciation of the true nature of the self at an experiential level is a
key part of the path to enlightenment.
Further interesting podcasts on the self can be found at:
http://philosophybites.com/2012/11/galen-strawson-on-the-sense-of-self.html
http://philosophybites.libsyn.com/patricia-churchland-on-self-control
David Kemmish
17 May 2016