What constructs the essence of one's being? — Lone Wolf

Too know thyself, that is the question. We are an observer of ourself as are others. Who am I? It is called process of constant discovery which changes us as we discover. Yesterday I was a student of history and today a meditator. Tomorrow an artist. One cannot grasp change. One can only obseve it as c it changes, and everyone will observe up something different, even as the observer observes itself.

The meanings of words are what the dictionary gives us - and that's based on how words are in fact generally used by people in the culture. Those usages are given, they're what we're inducted into when we learn language. In this sense language is a form of spontaneous social order, the product of human effort, but not of human design (although of course languages can be constructed - like Dothraki in Game of Thrones - it's just that the common languages aren't). And while it's true that language changes over time, it's very gradual, and for years at a time in the lifespan of a given human being, word use remains relatively fixed, a fixed point against which we measure other things. (One great analogy used for language-change is hair - there's always hair being lost and new hair imperceptibly growing, but one's "head of hair" remains the same "thing.")

That being the case, we describe our own behaviour partly by ourselves describing our own behaviour in the terms given to us by society around us, partly also by accepting how others describe us using the same language (and in this latter case what we're accepting from others isn't the meanings of the terms - those we already imbibed from society when we learnt the language - but rather the knowledge of how our behaviour looks from their point of view, described using those terms).

There's no fixed interpretation of what counts as (e.g.) a Buddhist outside of specific Buddhist traditions. I suppose if you accept some of the core teachings but reject other things, you can still call yourself a Buddhist - and if enough people have the same interpretation, then that's a new form of Buddhism. But no extant Buddhist tradition is obliged to accept your self-definition, or (should your group grow) your group's definition.

Whether they do so depends, e.g. on what they think of your teacher, on how you behave, or adhere to what they think of as the core teachings, etc. (That's actually how Buddhism developed - it changed somewhat in its passage East to China and Japan, for example, even though it retained some core elements that stayed the same, like acceptance of the Four Noble Truths.)

What constructs the essence of one's being? — Lone Wolf

Existence comes before essence. You have already existed a long time before you began to contemplate you essence. Much is given to you when you are conceived, and much is given to you, and you take much, after you are born. In our earliest years of formation, there is nothing or very little that we can do to achieve any "essence". Much later, when you pause to ask yourself, "What am I, essentially?" you find that you are what you have become. Is all then lost? Have you no choices? Not all is lost, you have choices, but you can't undo what has already happened in your life.

You can call yourself lazy and stupid. Perhaps you have a streak of self-hatred; perhaps you are actually brilliant and hard working. Or, maybe you are lazy and stupid. Lazy, stupid, self-loathing, smart, industrious, self-accepting, or whatever you are, determining what your "essence" is requires more than a quick glance in the mirror.

What is required to find your essence is self-investigation -- knowing yourself. It's a long-term assessment. What you did yesterday isn't your essence. Maybe you are a good and honest person year in, year out. Just because you robbed a bank yesterday doesn't make you the "essential bank robber". If you had been rolling drunks, sticking up convenience stores, robbing banks, breaking into cash machines, and yes, robbing banks, then maybe your essence would be closer to Tony Soprano and farther from Mother Theresa. On the other hand, people might like you more as Tony Soprano of North Caldwell, NJ than as Saint Teresa of Calcutta. Saint Teresa of Calcutta seemed kind of a bitch, at least in the hands of Christopher Hitchens' essay, Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. Of course, Tony had plenty to talk about with his psychiatrist, and he should definitely have gone to confession about every 15 minutes and performed infinite acts of contrition. I'd still rather spend a weekend with Tony than Teresa.

For example, if one claims to be lazy and stupid, but is actual hard-working and highly intelligent by that culture's general standards, then does one lie to oneself or is it an internal conflict with what actually constructs the definition of lazy and stupid? — Lone Wolf

It helps to see that this linguistic self is a social construction. And so the words society creates as descriptors are those that it would have us apply in our self regulatory behaviour on its behalf. These are the social judgements by which we are meant to judge ourselves, and in so doing, create that very self.

Society has some theory about what individuals ideally ought to be. And we learn the habit of constantly measuring all our behaviour against that. You are describing that self judgement here.

More than that, you are highlighting the pretty harsh and open ended standards that are characteristic of a modern developed nation state of mind. It is never good enough for a self actualising individual to be merely average. One must be transcendent. :)

If one changes so rapidly, does an individual even exist? Or are we all merely beings without individuality, flowing with whatever chemical changes that occur inside? Which, the existence of a moral code would be hard to ingrain into any human then, as one cannot change from believing that murder is wrong, to murder ought to be promoted overnight.

That being the case, we describe our own behaviour partly by ourselves describing our own behaviour in the terms given to us by society around us, partly also by accepting how others describe us using the same language (and in this latter case what we're accepting from others isn't the meanings of the terms - those we already imbibed from society when we learnt the language - but rather the knowledge of how our behaviour looks from their point of view, described using those terms). — gurugeorge

This makes sense.

Whether they do so depends, e.g. on what they think of your teacher, on how you behave, or adhere to what they think of as the core teachings, etc. (That's actually how Buddhism developed - it changed somewhat in its passage East to China and Japan, for example, even though it retained some core elements that stayed the same, like acceptance of the Four Noble Truths.) — gurugeorge

This is where so many different versions and types of one religion must come from, but at some point, they have to have something in common. I suppose if one desires to be labeled in the identity, then to accurately label, it must be highly detailed of which branch one follows.

If one changes so rapidly, does an individual even exist? Or are we all merely beings without individuality, flowing with whatever chemical changes that occur inside? Which, the existence of a moral code would be hard to ingrain into any human then, as one cannot change from believing that murder is wrong, to murder ought to be promoted overnight. — Lone Wolf

We change but we have memory - of all sorts. Certain aspects of ourselves change more quickly than others.

Is all then lost? Have you no choices? Not all is lost, you have choices, but you can't undo what has already happened in your life. — Bitter Crank

Suppose finds it contrary to oneself to steal. Does it then become impossible to steal? I think not, but rather it would not be true to one's identity, but rather breaking away from what one became.

then maybe your essence would be closer to Tony Soprano and farther from Mother Theresa. — Bitter Crank

Then perhaps we are not really individuals, but rather mere copies of each other with occasional random differences haha.

Then in part, memory also must make us who we are.

Then in part, memory also must make us who we are. — Lone Wolf

Fundamentally we are memory. It provides us with the sense of continuity of existence. But there may be a bit more. I'm contemplating the possibility.

Does it then become impossible to steal? — Lone Wolf

Unfortunately, we are quite capable of doing what we know damn well is wrong, and we go ahead and do it anyway. Then we feel guilty, and guilt may help us mend our ways. Have I done those things I ought not to have done? You bet. Have I left things undone that I ought to have done? Absolutely. All we, like sheep, have gone astray. We have turnéd, everyone to his own way. And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Here, George Frederich Handel wrote a little ditty about it. I'm including the words, because to some people it sounds like, "Oh, we like sheep!" which sends their minds in unfortunate directions.

This is where so many different versions and types of one religion must come from, but at some point, they have to have something in common. — Lone Wolf

Yeah, I think with most religions there are core tenets and peripheral tenets, so you can still be "of that religion" while disagreeing on peripherals. The core tenets would be what distinguish that religion as a whole from other religions.

Hmm, I think there must be a bit more, as many emotions are a result of chemicals, which possess mass. But that may be beyond the point...

Yes, of course. But I was referring to what is necessary for our existence; if doing something contrary to what we believe is outside ourselves. Since you brought it the matter up though, it might lead more to a doctrine of depravity, which I suppose would be something to also consider when one ponders his/her identity.

Okay, thanks!

emotions are a result of chemicals, — Lone Wolf

Chemicals would be the manifestation of emotions.

Could be, I haven't studied the matter as well as I ought to have.

When one proclaims to be Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian, must one embrace all the general doctrine of that idea in order to call oneself of that sort? — Lone Wolf

An interesting point about Buddhism - first, it denies that there are 'essences' in the Aristotelian sense. A being is understood in terms of the skandhas, 'heaps' or aggregates (of perception, sensation, habit-formation etc) with no permanent or underlying nature. ('real nature is no nature' is a Buddhist aphorism.)

Related to this is the fact that even the Buddhist religion is regarded as being a vehicle or vessel used to 'cross the river' of suffering - but then is discarded once the river has been crossed. In that, it is very different to the Western conception of religion. (Can't help be reminded of the title of that film, 'Burn After Reading'.)

Nevertheless, there are obviously Buddhists - several hundred millions, according to most counts. But I suppose they must regard their identity as something like a 'Work In Progress' which ultimately will be discarded; the 'mask of persona', which is removed once the play is over.

//ps//I note GuruGeorge already mentioned Buddhism above, didn't read it till after this was posted.

Very interesting! It is curious how something could be considered to have no nature at all; seems to be a contradiction, as a nature of sorts must construct a being, else it becomes nothing at all. Do Buddhists hope to not exist at some point?

Actually 'hoping not to exist' is one of the hindrances that has to be overcome! Which sounds highly counter-intuitive, but it is expressed in terms of the self either seeking for continued existence, on the one hand, or desiring not to exist, on the other. Both are forms of desire and seeking which are ultimately grounded in self-concern; the latter, which is termed 'nihilism', is said to be driven by the inability to face the reality of karma (whereas the former, simply the desire for continued existence.)

For this reason, Nirvāṇa is frequently, but erroneously, interpreted as non-existence, oblivion or non-being; this seems to have been how it was understood by the early European interpreters including Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. This is partially because the etymology of the term Nirvāṇa means 'blowing out' or 'extinguishing'. However a more accurate interpretation is that it is the blowing out or extinguishing of the suffering that is an unavoidable consequence of ordinary human existence; ergo the Buddha is said to have 'gone beyond' such states ('lokuttara', meaning 'world-transcending'.)

For this reason, Nirvāṇa is frequently, but erroneously, interpreted as non-existence, oblivion or non-being; this seems to have been how it was understood by the early European interpreters including Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. — Wayfarer

You'll have to point me to where Schopenhauer distinguishes between non-existence and non-being, lol.

Have a browse of The Cult of Nothingness: The Philosophers and the Buddha, (although, that said, I think Schopenhauer’s interpretation was superior to Nietzsche’s. It least the former recognised the theoretical possibility of transcendence of ‘the will’)

Are you distinguishing between a desire for non existence (or a desire for some kind of existence) and a disclosure of the Buddhist truth that you don't exist? In other words the doctrine of non self. Or are you interpreting this Buddhist truth of non self in terms of a Nietzschean/Schopenhauerian desire/will? Sorry I'm tired I cannot think clearly...

What constructs the essence of one's being? Such as, if one identifies as being lazy, then must one act lazy, within the sense of the word found in society? For example, if one claims to be lazy and stupid, but is actual hard-working and highly intelligent by that culture's general standards, then does one lie to oneself or is it an internal conflict with what actually constructs the definition of lazy and stupid?

I don't believe we have an essence beyond our organism, which includes our matter and form, what we call our self, the whole, the gestalt. We are never static, always changing, yet our organism normally retains much of the same which enables us to claim self identity over long periods of time. We learn as a child to identify with what others say about us, even when what is said does not mirror our own estimation of our-self. At the same time we learn to assume different roles, nuance existing roles, and we do this all the time, but some roles stick with us because of our history, where we grew up, how our care-givers helped us shape the roles we assume and what we have learnt and in which we feel most comfortable being.

Genes, diet, environment, and past to present time experiences, no more than the interactions of every circumstance come our way upon us. It`s pointless philosophizing over obscurity when o much could be said and done to relieve suffering in the world. This is where significant philosophy resides.

Are you distinguishing between a desire for non existence (or a desire for some kind of existence) and a disclosure of the Buddhist truth that you don't exist? In other words the doctrine of non self. Or are you interpreting this Buddhist truth of non self in terms of a Nietzschean/Schopenhauerian desire/will? Sorry I'm tired I cannot think clearly... — bloodninja

It is not a Buddhist truth that ‘you don’t exist’. That is a common misreading, but the belief that ‘you don’t exist’ is a form of nihilism. The Buddhist view is that everything that exists (including the self) arises as a consequence of dependent origination. And understanding dependent origination is quite an undertaking.

What I said about European interpreters of Buddhism is that they tended to interpret Nirvāṇa as non-existence or oblivion, which is also a nihilistic interpretation. Nietszche described Buddhism as ‘the sigh of an exhausted civlization’. Schopenhauer’s idealist philosophy (and Kant’s, for that matter) has some common ground with aspects of Buddhism - have a look at Schopenhauer and Buddhism, Peter Abelson (when you’ve had some rest ;-). )

So to eventually become detached from all things, but to exist as oneself, without interference?

I don't believe we have an essence beyond our organism, which includes our matter and form, what we call our self, the whole, the gestalt. We are never static, always changing, yet our organism normally retains much of the same which enables us to claim self identity over long periods of time. We learn as a child to identify with what others say about us, even when what is said does not mirror our own estimation of our-self. At the same time we learn to assume different roles, nuance existing roles, and we do this all the time, but some roles stick with us because of our history, where we grew up, how our care-givers helped us shape the roles we assume and what we have learnt and in which we feel most comfortable being. — Cavacava

I think that one must have to have some sort of structure, a backbone to support the being, such as a sort of moral code. Morality must, at least in part, structure who we are, because without it, we would be too changeable and have no sense of personhood. I agree that this must be started in childhood and develops from there.

Nirvāṇa is customarily described as inconceivable or impossible to imagine - ‘the Tathagatha’, which is kind of an honorific description of the Buddha, is said to be ‘deep, unfathomable, like the ocean. ‘Exists’ doesn’t apply, ‘doesn’t exist’ also doesn’t apply.’ It’s a difficult topic.

Have you ever read Levinas? I imagine his notion of the Other that precedes my ipseity, my simple being-as-self, has resonance for some Buddhist adherents.