Therefore, how can I achieve satisfaction is through maintaining myself just as I am. — Shawn

That's your business, not ours.

That's your business, not ours. — frank

Yes, well, if it was worth saying. I don't think I need the new Google Pixel 7 Pro or the mePhone 14 Pro. I'm quite content with what I have already.

I have a pixel 6 pro. I won't be upgrading for a couple of years unless the battery goes to crap.

I have a pixel 6 pro. I won't be upgrading for a couple of years unless the battery goes to crap. — frank

I have the Pixel 5. I just got it for 5G connectivity. I don't care for a 30 MP camera on a phone. Go figure.

Why lie about who we are? Why become something we are not? — Shawn

Who we are is not a static thing - we are constantly changing, becoming something we are not, whether we like it or not.

What about the person who is forced to change, to become stronger and braver or end up dead in a ditch, or so heavily traumatized they are hollowed out from within? That seems to cut against this self-exploratory, somewhat saccharine, and speciously value-laden discussion.

Millions of people are forced to change, and it has nothing to do with ethical questions. Get tough, or perhaps even monstrous, or die. For many people it is that simple. No child forced to flee a genocide and live as a refugee in a slum asks: "should I try to become more ruthless and cleverer to survive?"

What about the person who is forced to change, to become stronger and braver or end up dead in a ditch, or so heavily traumatized they are hollowed out from within? — ToothyMaw

I believe that the reason for this are natural factors that cannot be accounted for ethically. These natural or social issues, such a living in poverty or being poor, can be omitted from the discussion.

That seems to cut against this self-exploratory, somewhat saccharine, and speciously value-laden discussion. — ToothyMaw

Sure, however it seems that trying to come to terms with one's circumstances in life along with not wanting to become something one isn't, is a healthy and therapeutic practice. What's not to love about self-acceptance? I precise the issue in this thread about ethics and how to behave ethically when confronted with not wanting to change the way one is; but seemingly we haven't come to agreement about what a person's integrity constitutes.

The one thing each of us knows most about is ourselves and our lives. But I suspect that the even most aware of us is only skimming the surface of our entirety (whatever that is). If our unconscious were totally accessible and conscious, we still might be in the dark about our own life... and we had a front row seat.

Like Bart Simpson said, after taking Focusyn (a fictional ADHD drug): “most people only use 10% of their brain. Today I am one of them”. :snicker:

Not exactly sure how this relates to the OP about being something that we are not. Have we really discovered and explored all of our being? Maybe someone has. It probably took a while.

Yeah, well I think the hoi polloi wouldn't much care. But, for those that live an examined life, maybe?

The unexamined life is worth a pile of jack-squat, said Emerson. (Or maybe it was Matt Foley, motivational speaker?)

But seriously, I usually get these type of thoughts when there is a looming choice to be made, or when going through trial by fire #3527. Then reading Greek myths or other stories of transformation, death and rebirth, and metamorphosis is comforting and maybe even helpful. At least it helps me procrastinate a little more.

have the Pixel 5. I just got it for 5G connectivity. I don't care for a 30 MP camera on a phone. Go figure. — Shawn

If you're selling junk on eBay, it's worth it, especially the portrait mode on the pixel 6. It kicks butt.

t trying to come to terms with one's circumstances in life along with not wanting to become something one isn't, is a healthy and therapeutic practice. What's not to love about self-acceptance? — Shawn

That we have to make an effort to accept ourselves demonstrates the fact that the person we find ourselves to be is at odds with the person we had thought ourselves to be. How often does our behavior surprise or disappoint or puzzle us ? How many nights do we lay awake wracked with guilt, not recognizing who we have become? And how many relationships dissolve because because one or both of the parties are no longer who they used to be? It seems to me , then, that self-acceptance arrives after the fact. Of course we don’t want changes in ourselves that we dont choose, that other people and circumstance in general seem to force on us. That’s implied by will or desire. But how many times have we resisted tooth and nail changes in our thinking or ways of doing things that we later considered to be profound improvements in ourselves? Isn’t it the case that often changes in ourselves that we resist most strongly turn out in retrospect to be the most beneficial?

Therapists are familiar with the scenario where just as a client is getting close to achieving a breakthrough in insight about some aspect of their life, they are overwhelmed with a feeling of threat, even when they perceive the changes to be potentially positive. They feel threatened because they anticipate the insights will bring wrenching, confusing readjustments in their way of relating to themselves and others. Threat acts as a protective valve against the initial disruption that personal transformation brings. It prompts us to retreat back into the old and familiar habits of self, even when those habits have become confining.

The fact is the self is changing all the time. Self-acceptance is not about desiring a self frozen in place (which describes the mood of despair) , but striking a balance between who we are becoming and who we have been. We must not move too quickly into unexplored frontiers, so that we can preserve enough integrity and coherence in our identity to be able to accept our changing self.

An excellent question OP. We're all somebody as in each one of us is unique - there's a something that makes me me and not you or somebody else and the same goes for ya too and anyone else for that matter. Why would I want to be someone else i.e. what I am not? Is it even possible and if it is, is it desirable? And if it is desirable, is it good? If it is good, is it really good? So on and so forth. Fascinating, oui monsieur?

Why lie about who we are? Why become something we are not? — Shawn

I'm not convinced that many of us know who we are (whatever that might mean) or that we have much idea who we wish to be (same problem). Sure, we might make plans or attempt to tweak elements of behaviour (like quitting smoking) but how deep does this go and, if it does go deep, what are we really aware of?

Why lie about who we are? Why become something we are not? — Shawn

On the practical side, there are obvious reasons why one might want to become fluent in French, or a qualified electrician, or a hit with the ladies. Such becoming capable takes time, but can be realised eventually -- or sometimes not.

But for a liar to become honest, for a violent man to become peaceful, for a selfish man to become unselfish, these things cannot be done with time, gradually. It takes a flash of insight, and there is an instant transformation, or there is not.

What tends to happen in self-observation is that one is divided into the observer and the observed, the critic or analyser and the criticised or analysed. Suppose for example I smoke, and I am wanting to be a non-smoker. The wannabe non-smoker looks critically at the smoker and demands an effort to stop. This can last up to three hours, until the smoker's desire to smoke reasserts itself. Because the wannabe non-smoker is actually the smoker - the one who wants to stop wants to continue. And so I go about saying "I'm trying to give up, but it's very hard.", and thinking that in time it will be easier, like speaking French. But insight is seeing without the separation, that one's desire to stop has always been imaginary to the extent that it has always been separated from one's desire to smoke. Once that conflict sees itself whole, it will be instantly resolved. If one wants not to do something, one simply stops and there is no difficulty, effort, or time involved. It takes a few days for the nicotine in the body to disperse, but stopping has already happened.

Spotting the conflict can be tricky: I want to be a concert pianist/rock and roll guitar-god, but I don't want to spend 10,000 hours training my eyes to read music and my hands to play it. That cannot be.

It's not necessarily a conflict arising in the individual at stake here; but more of an issue of internal consistency. I guess, @180 Proof called it 'integrity'; but, I side with being consistent with oneself.

I suppose one has the goal of ideal in mind first and then the rest follows, in that, when I want to become happier I no longer engage in the habits that cause my neuroticism or addiction. If I want to be, want to be, in wanting the issues arise and some discomfort also arises. So, why suffer with so much wanting?

I recently purchased the Generic Self Help Book by A. Twat. In it it said that we have plenty of work to do becoming what we are, never mind becoming what we are not. I guess that means we already are what we are not.

Some further though on internal consistency in my mind arise with respect to ethics mainly, hence the mention of Frankfurt.

If I have an ethical goal (the highest good), or an ideal, wouldn't it be a sine qua non to maintain myself with respect to that goal, always to behave truthfully?

The counterfactual would be to deviate from that goal and that would not be desired to realize that goal.

Anyone think that's true?

I'll provide an example from Frankfurt. What he calls, 'wanting', are higher order volitions. In the Kantian sense of the term, 'volition', I find myself asking if I have a lack of higher order volitions?

How does one instill a higher order volition without appeal to ethics and the good?

In it it said that we have plenty of work to do becoming what we are, never mind becoming what we are not. I guess that means we already are what we are not. — bert1

I see this as a cognitive distortion, as to not knowing who we are until confronted with a situation that demands a choice. Apathy or ignorance can be detrimental to ethics and knowing what to do. Maintenance of ourselves with respect to potential eventualities are encompassed by having a set and steady way of behaving in the world when confronted with decisions that inconvenient to us. Having a moral compass is essential, don't you think?

Having a moral compass is essential, don't you think? — Shawn

Essential to something, I'm sure it is, yes. Integrity perhaps. By 'moral compass' do you mean values that determine behaviour in a wide variety of situations? Of something more than that, perhaps. If it were just that greed could be a moral compass in that you can decide what to do in a situation based on what results in the most material gain. Are some values better than other? But that is to evaluate values, which can get a bit bootstrappy.

By 'moral compass' do you mean values that determine behaviour in a wide variety of situations? — bert1

Yes.

Of something more than that, perhaps. If it were just that greed could be a moral compass in that you can decide what to do in a situation based on what results in the most material gain. — bert1

I believe your right about this. In my opinion, what matters most are volitions such as a desire to do good. It goes without saying that consequentialism typically is what the hoi polloi have adopted as their calculus or rationale to make these decisions.

What are your thoughts about this?