Self-view

Question

Descartes noticed that the wax changed and changed again, yet somehow, despite these changes, we think of it as the same piece of wax. We tend to think it's the same piece of wax through all these transformations. A Buddhist might say we have a self-view of the wax. When Descartes went on to ponder whether he himself actually existed, it must have been frightening. Finally he clutched at his famous formula, "I think, therefore I am." This must have relieved him greatly. But does it really solve the problem? We may be aware that thinking is occurring, but does that necesssarily imply a thinker? No "I" can be established. All we really know is that there's a process going on callled thinking.

Does 'we have a self-view of the wax' mean A Buddhist might say people often view a self as the wax?

And 'No "I" can be established' is not clear to me. Does it mean Nothing like"I" can be fabricated or possible?

Thanks in advance.

Makka2802 · Accepted Answer

mariottDoes 'we have a self-view of the wax' mean A Buddhist might say people often view a self as the wax?

No that is not it I'm afraid. It has to do with the Buddhist view of emptiness: that all things, even people, are devoid of anything that makes them what we think they are, e.g. there is nothing that makes me who I am. The self-view is the natural counter-argument people make as they say: "There must be a self. I know who I am. I am James. Therefore there must be something that makes me James". The Buddhist view is that this is an illusion. Similarly, even though we see that piece of wax as the same piece of wax, it is different, it has changed, it is not the same piece of wax. It is claimed that maybe the self-view is a symptom of why we think it is the same piece of wax.

mariottAnd 'No "I" can be established' is not clear to me. Does it mean Nothing like"I" can be fabricated or possible?

It has to do with the buddhist view of emptiness again. There is nothing that makes me who I am. The use of "I" as referring to my 'self' is troublesome, because there is no self for 'I' to refer to, so an 'I' cannot be established.

It probably sounds complex. You've unfortunately found yourself something that relies on some philosophical background. And philosophy is not always the easiest thing to understand.

Mariott · Answer

Thanks a million makka2802!

Dave_anon · Answer

Dear Makka

- and hallo Mariott!

I agree with you about the wax. Descartes can only persuade himself that "some kind of thinking is going on". The experience does not give him good reason to think he is a separate "I"

The more modern Cartesian question is: who am I talking to and how did I learn to talk?

Here, if you reply that I am not really talking to anyone - that you are just an illusion - then that seems to rule you out of the philosophical debate (and I hope that is not so). Personally, I think you do exist and so do I - otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion

But I am interested to hear more - we don't get a lot of philosophy in the forum

Best regards, Dave

Mariott · Answer

Thanks Dave! The concept of 'nonself' or 'no I' is really tough to understand.

Let me quote a part of the book I'm reading: Buddha isn't saying you don't exist , just that you don't exist in the way you normally imagine. He never offered no self as absolute truth, but as what Buddhists call "skillful means," something intended to free us to see in a new way.

B. regards

Dave_anon · Answer

Hi

I am happy with that

I suppose I was saying that, while I'm typing this reply, I exist because the words require me to. It is in the nature of words that they refer to "I"

However, once I've signed off, I shall look out the window

That probably won't quite clear my mind, but, yes, I do see what you mean

Dave

Self-view

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions