@john27

Do you think that someone’s perception of himself and view of what attributes are essential to himself can sometimes be wrong?

I would think that is definitely plausible, yes. Sometimes people believe certain attributes are essential to themselves, even if they don't have it/can't obtain it.

i.e plastic surgery, and all that nonsense.

@john27

So just because you can’t imagine yourself without your sight or hearing or whatever else the loss of which you think would end your selfhood doesn’t mean that, if you lost it, you would cease to be you. Would you agree with that?

we automatically assert certain humans to be more purposeful or precious than others, e.g who would you rather save, a stranger or a family member? — john27

That or a simple case of "better the devil you know".

Beyond that however you seem to come into a catch-22 of sorts. Though I generally loathe the "me hit you, you hit me less hard, i good, you bad, you die now" cavemen-esque philosophy that those without any purpose that can't be replaced by a fallen tree perched on a rock seem to gravitate to almost religiously.. it does beg a very apt question. Is the man who can lift 10 fallen trees per hour used to shelter a society and can bag 5 wild boars to feed said society the same as another who can only lift 3 and bag 2, on a good day? How does this compare to the one born with a condition that makes such feats impossible, or better yet for kicks, what of the man who can lift 20 and bag 10 who suddenly becomes injured?

Without religion, rather belief that humans are profoundly separated from the animals, there is only one answer, and that is a resounding no. Some people find this depressing, especially if and when they become older and of little physical use or simply become injured or perhaps born with a disability. This is not what modern society is about, because again the work of a dozen of the strongest men can now be replaced by a machine that costs 2 cents an hour operated by someone who lost 3 limbs.

Society evolves. Some people in it however do not.

What good is a man who can lift an oak tree compared to a brilliant albeit handicapped poet who can spin legends and tales of magnificent entertainment in a society that has plenty of wood but not enough things to occupy their time?

*I would agree.

I guess at the end of it, we're all just some lonely cavemen.

Ooga oo.

So just because you can’t imagine yourself without your sight or hearing or whatever else the loss of which you think would end your selfhood doesn’t mean that, if you lost it, you would cease to be you. Would you agree with that? — Leghorn

↪Leghorn

*I would agree. — john27

Therefore, when you said this,

because I believe sight is a tool profoundly correlated to my character (which would then mean it's not a tool after all), its displacement would debilitate my self image, or the "who", — john27

you said something false, didn’t you? Because you just agreed that it’s not our belief or opinion that establishes our inherent being or essential selfhood.

I guess humans are constrained by inequality one way or another. — john27

I don't get it. Conformity is usually considered a bad thing. Yet, when people are different, :brow: . WTF?

I guess it would seem so.

Goldilocks is the name of the game, my friend.

@john27

Since you agree that we cannot subjectively determine our essential character, do think we might be able to do so objectively instead?

Goldilocks is the name of the game, my friend. — john27

:grin: It's an open secret, huh?

Well, she's the village pass-around for a reason.

Hm. Could you give an example of an objective reason that would permit one to verify his selfhood?

I'm interested in the parameters, thats all.

Well, she's the village pass-around for a reason. — john27

:gasp:

I know, I know. I shouldn't have said it.

:smile:

:wink:

Hm. Could you give an example of an objective reason that would permit one to verify his selfhood?

I'm interested in the parameters, thats all. — john27

How about this parameter: one’s selfhood is not subject to chance or fortune or accident?

I would agree with that.

@john27

I forgot to mention John, when we embarked on this discussion, one of the essential rules of dialectic: that you are to answer questions according to how you really feel, what you really believe: otherwise it becomes just an empty meaningless intellectual game.

The reason I mention this now is because I find it very hard to believe that you think our selfhood is not subject to chance; for you have consistently heretofore expressed the opinion that if a person considers his sight or hearing or athletic ability, etc, to be essential to who he is, and loses it, that his sense of self is altered and who he is is changed.

Well, yes, but I had thought that we had earlier established that the selfhood is not subject to belief, and so therefore chance that would impact the belief on my selfhood, would have no impact on the question of whom, ergo, chance does not affect selfhood/not subject to chance.

@john27

What about the Olympic table-tennis player then? Do you really believe that if he were bereaved of his ability to play, his selfhood would be unimpaired?

My intuition tells me yes, he would be greatly impaired, but I don't know what to tell you Leghorn; we had already established belief as non-important. Would you like to revisit the question perhaps?

Would you like to revisit the question perhaps? — john27

I think we just did, and I think you reversed your opinion:

My intuition tells me yes, he would be greatly impaired — john27

Is your “intuition” different from your opinion on this matter?

Yeah, seeing as my intuition has no rational behind it. I'm inclined to believe what we had just discussed, however i'm trapped by a sentiment.

@john27

Would you agree that when you place your self-worth in things that can be taken away by fortune, you put it on shaky ground—whereas when you place it in what fortune cannot touch that you place it on solid ground?

Sorry, i was pretty busy this week. On a train to Lyon right now actually.

I would agree.

@john27

So what do we have that we can base our self-worth on that is immune to “the slings and arrows” of fortune?

I don't think equality is natural; au contraire, inequality is more the norm than the exception in the world.

However, human inequality makes zero sense. Imagine we have two people, one white (X) and the other black ( Y ). You want to hire a mathematician and both X and Y went to the same school, the same university, and have equivalent PhD degrees in math. If you choose X over Y, you're being irrational for being white has nothing at all to do with math.

So yes, inequality is a part of, perhaps even critical to, life but human inequality, in some areas like the one described above, is untenable.

Inequality:

1. Natural: differences in strength, abilities, etc. Good!

2. Artificial: racism, sexism, etc. Bad!