You are the internal story you tell about how you fit into the world and society. If you don't have that story, there is no You.

If you don't have that story, there is no You. — Kaiser Basileus

I agree; only are we just "telling a story"? (to ourselves, or from ourselves? I'm not sure why "internal") I would suggest our fitting in or pushing back obligates us to "tell a story", in the sense of being answerable for what we claim to be ours.

Even when you tell yourself your internal story, you cannot deduce that you exist, because, whenever you make use of the idea of existence, you are making use of the mental structures of your brain. You can never take control of these structures, because you cannot think of them without using them again. If you think that this is evidence that your mind and your mental structures exist, it becomes automatically evidence that you are using them and, consequently, you have no control on what you are talking about. So, at the end, talking about existence, even our own existence while we are thinking about it, is completely meaningless: as soon as you think it has a meaning, you are automatically saying that you are a machine that is manoeuvred by that meaning, so that you cannot say anything meaningful about what you are talking about.

It has always seemed to me that when talking about the self, it is important to get clear about the difference between the subject, or that which is experiencing, and the content of experience. A story one tells oneself about oneself, or any conception or representation of oneself one might have, is not the subject, but rather content. It is a structure of thought, not the one that experiences having a thought.

What Descartes was saying, in my understanding, was that whatever I am thinking can be false, but I myself cannot be nonexistent and yet believe that I am. Whatever story I tell myself or that appears in my mind can be erroneous. Its claims might not correspond to reality. But I myself, the thinker itself, that which experiences having such possibly erroneous thoughts, cannot be an illusion. Everything I see might be a hallucination, including my own reflection in the mirror, but I myself, the subject, cannot be an illusion. Even if I am deceived, I am having an experience, and so I am. I might be wrong about my form, but I as long as there is experience, however false, there is an experiencer. It is inconceivable that a nonexistent entity might be fooled in any way whatsoever, and that includes being misled to believe that it exists.

A stage magician can lead an audience to believe all sorts of false things. But one thing the magician cannot do is convince a nonexistent audience that it is there watching the show.

So there are two things that people seem to be talking about when talking about the self. Communication often fails because people think they are talking about the same thing when they are not. One is the subject of experience. The other is some kind of structure of self-representation, or a form of experience. One is awareness, the other is content. One is seer, one is scene/seen. It is important to make clear what we are bringing into question then when we question the self. Is it the subject itself, or the self-idea?

it is important to get clear about the difference between the subject, or that which is experiencing, and the content of experience. — petrichor

I think we have to add a "3rd self," namely the unconscious self. As the distinction between subject-experience and content-experience makes clear, there is nothing contradictory about a self that is not (at the moment) available to conscious awareness. Paul Ricoeur pointed out (somewhere; I can't find the reference at the moment) that "knowing that I exist" doesn't tell me what I am. The cogito is uninformative about depth psychology.

Plus, if you're a determinist, you don't stand apart from the rest of the universe. Whatever impels the universe in general impels you. You sort of disappear into a monolith.

I think the domain where the idea of you, as a thinking, feeling actor on the world stage is the most potent is the moral realm. When you're victimized or when you hurt others, that's when you materialize in four dimensions to feel the pain, regret, or for some, the joy and dopamine of being hurtful.

One is awareness, the other is content. One is seer, one is scene/seen. It is important to make clear what we are bringing into question then when we question the self. Is it the subject itself, or the self-idea? — petrichor

Is there awareness without content, or is the container produced virtually, or imagined, as the limit of the contents? "The subject itself" has plenty of emphatic repetition but if it is not part of the content of awareness, who can say anything at all about it as to existence or anything else?

Here is a good model of awareness as i find it: there is a blank space of unawareness at the centre, and the frame of the picture of which one is aware expands from the centre to encompass the observer and eventually the whole universe. Everything is the contents of awareness, even blank unawareness, and the observer is also part of what is observed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print_Gallery_%28M._C._Escher%29

Even if I am deceived, I am having an experience, and so I am. I might be wrong about my form, but I as long as there is experience, however false, there is an experiencer. It is inconceivable that a nonexistent entity might be fooled in any way whatsoever, and that includes being misled to believe that it exists. — petrichor

But this is “exist” simply in the literal sense of, just: here; as it were: not not here; or just: alive, rather than dead. But then why is Descartes skipping over this human self-consciousness to “thought”? And why does he qualify it with “whenever” (as if sometimes he is not, and thus does not)? He goes on to say that “thought” is when he understands the conditions of a thing clearly and distinctly, not that it is just anything I say to myself. So this sense of "existing" tells us nothing other than I am a human that is alive, which is an obvious empirical fact.

What these philosophers are getting at is that “existence” is, in a sense, a mythical term, to capture that life can be meaningful or not, to “me”, that it might matter for me to make that known to others. Sometimes you don’t have an experience, in the sense that “you” do not have an experience when you, say, go to the store and nothing notable happens. “What have you been doing?” “I went to the store.” “How was your experience?” “Fine.” In your terms perhaps, if there is not “content”, there is no point to differentiate a “subject”.

It's a dense and informative OP, as expected from you. I am however a little perplexed by what the main point is, are you suggesting that the self exists only when we make propositions to others or that if we are alone, and we say we exist, we are not saying anything informative?

It's a very hard topic, hence the lack of progress for thousands of years. And there are many ways to confront the topic, one attempted solution is Descartes' and his argument that he cannot doubt that "he" is thinking, whatever "he" is.

We could also see the matter in the way you quoted Wittgenstein, which suggests that it is in the process of thinking and making attributions to others that we come to life.

We could also take Hume's approach, which allegedly echoes Buddhism, when he famously said:

"For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception."

Now, as has been commented on by several figures, he appears to deny or minimize something, he cannot help use: namely the "I". What is this referring to?

It could be that this is one of those problems in which our folk-intuition cannot do without, but which we cannot uncover through the most strenuous of efforts. Something can be an actual phenomenon, which we cannot delve into, nor explain, as I think is also the case of free will.

But I could be misreading you.

It could be that this is one of those problems in which our folk-intuition cannot do without, but which we cannot uncover through the most strenuous of efforts. Something can be an actual phenomenon, which we cannot delve into, nor explain, as I think is also the case of free will. — Manuel

Or infinity. We can't fathom it, but it's always there lurking in the contours of thought. When I think of the self I seem to fall into thinking of it as the primal dividing line: between me and not-me. All other division seem to follow, me and the perceived, the real and the not-real, the good and the bad, something and nothing, etc.

…there is nothing contradictory about a self that is not (at the moment) available to conscious awareness. Paul Ricoeur pointed out (somewhere; I can't find the reference at the moment) that "knowing that I exist" doesn't tell me what I am. The cogito is uninformative about depth psychology. — J

The extent, then, that [the "cogito"] is just as metaphysical and hyperbolical as [Descartes' radical] doubt, this "I" possesses immediately the value of an example, but in a sense of "anyone" which is without any common measure with its grammatical sense: anyone who, after Descartes, retraces the trajectory of doubt, says, as he did, "I". But, in so doing, this "I" becomes a non-person, that is to say, unidentifiable, undesignatable... — Ricoeur, Crisis of the

Though this may not be the quote you are referring to above, I take it you would agree that "what I am" is done differently than that "I" am constant and always special (that it is not that Descartes simply hopes truth can be certain, but they take him as proving that "I" am). From my studies of Ricoeur, I took away that time was an important element to him. Specifically, that everything happens as "an event", which allowed him to see that something I say is: to someone, at a place, under certain circumstances, knowing things, not knowing others, maybe blind to my (unconscious) reasons, knowing full well the consequences, etc. I can't but compare this to Descartes' "assertion" and Wittgenstein's "expression" of: "me". That I both stand for what I am here, now, but also that the judgment for which is: on me.

The cogito is uninformative about depth psychology. — J

As an aside, I wouldn't differentiate between a conscious and unconscious self; humans just have an "unconscious". But there is also more than psychology (e.g., repression of trauma and the resulting anxiety) to our criteria of a "self" (we are not defined or measured by our unconscious, however compelled we are to reenactment). Philosophy investigates what in our (collective) lives is unexamined, how life can have meaningful, our human condition and the resultant desires, how our practices involve our interests and our participation, and what matters to my being me.

I think the domain where the idea of you--as a thinking, feeling actor on the world stage--is the most potent is the moral realm. — frank

I agree, and would add that this understanding of the self as "asserted" (as it were along or against the backdrop of our practices and culture) is what creates the possibility of the moral realm. That, past trying to set out what we "ought" to do and beyond deciding on a goal, the sense of a place where we are lost at the edge of our culture or that our society as it stands has lost our interests, is the limit of knowledge, where we must, as you say, "materialize" our future (self, culture).

Or infinity. We can't fathom it, but it's always there lurking in the contours of thought. When I think of the self I seem to fall into thinking of it as the primal dividing line: between me and not-me. All other division seem to follow, me and the perceived, the real and the not-real, the good and the bad, something and nothing, etc. — frank

Yes, there are these kinds of intuitions, such as this is not me, or that is X not Y. Infinity too, is something we extrapolate to, without really understanding it much.

Curiously, something as murky as the self, is crucial for things like criminal law, which depend on such notions. Also, our moral intuitions come into play, in terms of, if John hit Bob, if John is provably sleepwalking, we can't blame him for such an act. But if he merely angry, then we do penalize him, etc.

I agree, and would add that this understanding of the self as "asserted" (as it were along or against the backdrop of our practices and culture) is what creates the possibility of the moral realm. — Antony Nickles

Assertion is a voluntary action, so it kind of requires a self of some kind, doesn't it? If you mean the self is drawn out of events post hoc, I think I agree? Likewise, morality is always a post hoc construction (I think) where we judge an event according to some standard or rule. That event was screwed up, so it's bad, and anything in the future that's like that would also be bad. But we can't really judge events in the future because we don't have access to them. We only have access to hypotheticals and past events.

So the self goes forward in time, propelled by a drive to live, even if it's a little organism with hardly a nervous system at all, if it moves by itself, we say it has volition, one of the cornerstones of selfhood.

That, past trying to set out what we "ought" to do and beyond deciding on a goal, the sense of a place where we are lost at the edge of our culture or that our society as it stands has lost our interests, is the limit of knowledge, where we must, as you say, "materialize" our future (self, culture). — Antony Nickles

Exactly.

Curiously, something as murky as the self, is crucial for things like criminal law, which depend on such notions. Also, our moral intuitions come into play, in terms of, if John hit Bob, if John is provably sleepwalking, we can't blame him for such an act. But if he merely angry, then we do penalize him, etc. — Manuel

So there's a conundrum. If John was sleepwalking, he did it, but he's not responsible. But what if we're always sleepwalking in a manner of speaking? Always playing out the same habits and grinding the same axes, or maybe only doing what we think we're supposed to do. That's a kind of loss of selfhood.

...are you suggesting that the self exists only when we make propositions to others...? — Manuel

Well it's not a matter of the proposition being "true" in a true/false sense, or that there is a function of a proposition like this to others that would be different from one I make to myself. I am saying your being you (individually) works through a process of putting yourself in line or against our culture (the social contract as it were), and that this happens as an event (not all the time), either moral, political, relational, etc. That you are standing behind what you say and do in a way that defines you, makes you subject to judgment, responsible to be intelligible; that you are claiming something as yours--Descartes' "must" here is because you are in a sense making that promise to yourself (and others), that you will make it true.

...are you suggesting that... if we are alone, and we say we exist, we are not saying anything informative? — Manuel

Well, let's try to imagine a context in which we would say this (not to be too Wittgensteinian about it). Perhaps if we were getting ourselves psyched or trying to get our confidence up in the face of someone treating us as insignificant (less than a person)--"I exist! I exist!"--and this would be in the sense that I matter, that I am not nothing.

For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception — Hume, Treatise on Human Nature

.

Now, as has been commented on by several figures, he appears to deny or minimize something, he cannot help use: namely the "I". What is this referring to? — Manuel

Well here Hume is actually bemoaning his situation that he only observes "perception" and never any constant "self". What he wants to find is who and how we "possess" (make specific and certain, as we might objects) our "personal identity, as it regards our thought or imagination" setting aside "our passions or the concern we take in ourselves", which I am saying these other authors take up as what we must assert and express into the world--in a way that is not self interest, but takes ownership ("possesses") of what we want our interests to be in the world (Wittgenstein will call this our "real need"), that we own (up to) them (living our shared criteria for judgment, or averse to them; extending them, revolutionizing our lives).

I appreciate your response.

So there's a conundrum. If John was sleepwalking, he did it, but he's not responsible. But what if we're always sleepwalking in a manner of speaking? Always playing out the same habits and grinding the same axes, or maybe only doing what we think we're supposed to do. That's a kind of loss of selfhood. — frank

I mean if you have that in mind, say, sleepwalking through life or drowned in consumerism or some other metaphoric use of the term, I still think the whole "reasonable person" standard applies, you would be responsible for your actions because you know what you are doing is wrong.

In the case of literal sleepwalking, as in, not being conscious of what you are doing in your "awake state" - your behavior in other words - then culpability feels wrong, there was no intent, no sudden impulse, just a reaction is sleep.

am saying your being you (individually) works through a process of putting yourself in line or against our culture (the social contract as it were), and that this happens as an event (not all the time), either moral, political, relational, etc. — Antony Nickles

Sure, I can see that. But aren't there empirical cases we could look into? As in a child being raised by wild animals in which they don't have other human beings as a reference frame, what would happen to them?

Maybe they don't have a sophisticated sense of self.

Well, let's try to imagine a context in which we would say this (not to be too Wittgensteinian about it). Perhaps if we were getting ourselves psyched or trying to get our confidence up in the face of someone treating us as insignificant (less than a person)--"I exist! I exist!"--and this would be in the sense that I matter, that I am not nothing. — Antony Nickles

I'd phrase it as "I am saying nothing", by which "saying" I intend to get across something beyond syllables, as in telling that person "I'm going to faint!", as a warning to be attended to or looked at.

which I am saying these other authors take up as what we must assert and express into the world--in a way that is not self interest, but takes ownership ("possesses") of what we want our interests to be in the world (Wittgenstein will call this our "real need"), that we own (up to) them (living our shared criteria for judgment, or averse to them; extending them, revolutionizing our lives). — Antony Nickles

Sure, he is aiming at that ownership status, as it were. Funnily enough, in his Appendix to the Treatise, he recognized that his entire system essentially collapses, when he says "my hopes vanish", when discussing the problem of not being able to find a self and not being able to find a real (as opposed to imagined) continuity in objects.

He is admitting, implicitly, that he is using in his system, more than should be allowed, under his system, namely assuming the self is unified and that objects have a real connection, despite not being able to prove it.

Extremely interesting passages often ignored. But it gets at a very important part of the issue, but it does leave the social aspect - which is crucial - outside, so, perhaps not entirely relevant to the discussion.

cc: @Manuel

Assertion is a voluntary action, so it kind of requires a self of some kind, doesn't it? — frank

Well, Austin will have a lot to say about this in his 31-page "A Plea for Excuses, which I highly recommend, but it might be hard to see his purpose in pointing out that "intention" and "volition" are only brought up in special cases (not all the time) as when things go sideways ("Did you intend to do that?"); the purpose being that, no, an "act" does not require an actor in the sense of a cause or decision, etc. What occurs in a particular situation is judged (when necessary) to be an act under different though common (ordinary) criteria for each act taking into consideration the circumstances. The "self" that these authors are pointing out is an assertion in the sense of claiming authority (over this judging) where the thing gone sideways is our shared criteria (which I must stand against), or our lives together (which may not reflect our standards for the justice we profess).

If you mean the self is drawn out of events post hoc, I think I agree? Likewise, morality is always a post hoc construction (I think) where we judge an event according to some standard or rule. That event was screwed up, so it's bad, and anything in the future that's like that would also be bad. But we can't really judge events in the future because we don't have access to them. We only have access to hypotheticals and past events. — frank

Of course, who you are is “drawn out” from, or judged from, your actions. But I make a claim to (and for) my self; I put my self forth as an standard(bearer). This is also a different vision of morality (although that is a different discussion); not something worked out in advance or based on rules or history (although that can be taken into consideration). There is a moral moment, when we are lost and don't know how to proceed, at which point my action is based not on what is "right", but on what I will take as mine, be responsible for (Nietzsche will call this the birth of the human, as it were, over deontology or teleology).

But what if we're always sleepwalking in a manner of speaking? Always playing out the same habits and grinding the same axes, or maybe only doing what we think we're supposed to do. That's a kind of loss of selfhood. — frank

And this is the sense of self to which I am claiming these authors speak to. If we never allow our words to express our self (hide from that exposure, commitment), then we merely quote others' lives (as Emerson puts it).

Well, Austin will have a lot to say about this in his 31-page "A Plea for Excuses, which I highly recommend, but it might be hard to see his purpose in pointing out that "intention" and "volition" are only brought up in special cases (not all the time) as when things go sideways ("Did you intend to do that?"); — Antony Nickles

You've brought this up before, the idea that there is no intention in language use. Not sure what to make of it.

Sure, I can see [the self as created, not existing]. But aren't there empirical cases we could look into? As in a child being raised by wild animals in which they don't have other human beings as a reference frame, what would happen to them? — Manuel

You are asking for proof of what are the conditions we act under as humans (as if philosophy's issues could be answered with science). These authors are trying to get us to see that being human is sometimes beyond the judgment and criteria (and morality even Nietzsche will point out) of our cultural history, our shared ways of judging, identifying, proceeding, etc; not as an ideal but a part of our situation as humans, that our our lives are larger than the limitations of knowledge, that we are not always "circumscribed with rules"(Investigations #68).

"[creating the self] takes ownership ("possesses") ...what we want our interests to be in the world...". — Antony Nickles

Sure, he is aiming at that ownership status, as it were. — Manuel

Not sure what your understanding is here ("as it were"?), but the common picture is that there is something that is "mine" that I own (always, or in acting--a perception, an intention, a meaning) that you don't understand, or that I can't communicate (some kind of matching up with what is "me"--see Hume discussion below), rather than the sense of taking on, owning up to, whatever the judgment or consequences or need for response of a situation.

[Hume] recognized that his entire system essentially collapses, when he says "my hopes vanish", when discussing the problem of not being able to find a self and not being able to find a real (as opposed to imagined) continuity in objects. — Manuel

A little bit off topic but important in seeing his alternative "picturing" of the self, and why. Hume is important (as is Descartes), because he does take the threat of skepticism seriously: the possibility that we make mistakes, may be judged as wrong or bad, that we may not know or agree how to continue. Hume will take this fallibility as a "problem" (even with objects) and projects that onto a manufactured placeholder, "appearance", and then "internalizes" the "answer" (as Kant wants to externalize it, creating the "thing-in-itself" and then problematizing that), which makes "finding", as you say, matching up as it were, equating, my self, my perception, critical (to take the place of our role in answering for our self).

The reason for the machinations is to make our fallibility an intellectual problem (of knowledge) in the desire for the answer to meet a particular per-determined requirement, standard (predictable, concrete, "rational", universal, generalized, complete, controllable, etc.). As you say, he is "assuming the self is unified and that objects have a real connection...." (emphasis added because these assumptions are based on the desire for a knowable certainty). I am trying to show these authors take the creation of the self, thus the possibility of its not existing, not that we can't find an answer to the problem of skepticism,but that we are in the position were we "answer" for our actions and speech in ongoing various ways (not as a picture of matching up with what is "my self"--as above).

I mean if you have that in mind, say, sleepwalking through life or drowned in consumerism or some other metaphoric use of the term, I still think the whole "reasonable person" standard applies, you would be responsible for your actions because you know what you are doing is wrong. — Manuel

It is not "metaphoric" as in just language or a social commentary; there is actual import in it for the analytical workings of the conditions of being human.

See my response to @Frank above about morality (reason, standards, "right"). Although, again, that is a different discussion (though granted it is connected). You are "responsible" not in its sense that you are acting appropriately ("I'm a responsible person"); but in its emphasis on being liable for, answerable to, your actions. "Rationality" is (afterwards) giving reasons, or excuses, or contingencies. We have to justify ourselves, be intelligible, rather than rely on what has been determined as "right" (to avoid my being wrong in that I can blame: "moral ambiguity" rather than as a reflection on me).

You are asking for proof of what are the conditions we act under as humans (as if philosophy's issues could be answered with science). These authors are trying to get us to see that being human is sometimes beyond the judgment and criteria (and morality even Nietzsche will point out) of our cultural history, our shared ways of judging, identifying, proceeding, etc; not as an ideal but a part of our situation as humans, that our our lives are larger than the limitations of knowledge, that we are not always "circumscribed with rules"(Investigations #68). — Antony Nickles

I entirely agree. Still, when the occasion arises in which some of these things could be addressed, perhaps in an indirect manner, then we should use such results, it's very rare for modern science to have much to say about the lingering problems of philosophy these days. There may be some exceptions, but on the whole, not much.

A case in which a person is raised by wild animals, could give some clues. Some.

I'm a mysterian, so, I have no issue with "being human is...beyond the judgment and criteria...of our cultural history."

My intuition is that there we can't give a satisfactory action to this topic. Then again, maybe good literature could give some kind of insight.

I am trying to show these authors take the creation of the self, thus the possibility of its not existing, not that we can't find an answer to the problem of skepticism,but that we are in the position were we "answer" for our actions and speech in ongoing various ways (not as a picture of matching up with what is "my self"--as above). — Antony Nickles

Sure, I think that the "actual" existence, the real thing not (merely) a fiction of the mind, of a self is quite unclear, I do not think we can say with confidence (not certainty, of course) whether such things exist or do not.

We act as if they existed and in fact, as I mentioned elsewhere, base our law on the assumption of the existence of something like a self.

It is not "metaphoric" as in just language or a social commentary; there is actual import in it for the analytical workings of the conditions of being human. — Antony Nickles

I'm not saying it's nothing, but in a court of law the difference between sleepwalking and intent to kill has literally prevented a person from going to prison.

You've brought this up before, the idea that there is no intention in language use. — frank

It isn't that there is no such thing as intention, just that it works differently than philosophy has sometimes pictured it (socially, rather than “mentally”). It is not a cause (which would thus require a “self” to enact). The picture of a constant “self” (who intends) leads to the picture that we "use" language, as if: operate it or control it (that is not to say we don't sometimes chose what we say with the intention, as in the hope, that it have a particular outcome). The desire for philosophy’s standard picture of intention is to maintain control of what “we” mean; to imagine our duty is merely to accurately describe our (inner) “self”, rather than remain accountable to the implications of our expressions and acts in light of the expectations and conditions (criteria for judgment) of a situation. Our situation is not our selves already always present, but that “I” am dormant within our cultural roles (limited to the means of production Marx would say); I am only myself in relation or opposition to this conformity, which I stand ready to answer to.

Kind of like Sartre? "I am the situation"

My claim is that the self (that you) may not exist (in an ordinary way)--that the self exists at times, defined against the usual state of conformity (chains, asleep, silent consent). (I am cribbing this from Tracy B. Strong.)

I conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, must be true whenever I assert it or think it.
— Descartes, 1st Meditation (my emphasis added)

The popular summary of this quote: "I think, therefore, I am" has been read that my constant internal monologue demonstrates that I must constantly and knowably be me; that I "exist" as an ever-present thing. But what is lost is that Descartes says that it is only "whenever" he asserts the proposition, that he does exist; so, only at times (or perhaps not at all). And that I am contingent on the act of assertion; thinking in a particular, different sense than just talking to myself. — Antony Nickles

One only exists, when one asserts he thinks, therefore he exists. :roll: And other times, he doesn't. That sounds not valid.

Shouldn't Cogito be understood as a wider meaning such as consciousness which includes all the mental activities such as general mental awareness, perception, thinking and feeling ... etc rather than just think?

In that case, One is conscious (feels, thinks), therefore one exists.
As long as one is conscious (feels, perceives, thinks), one exists. Because consciousness requires, by necessity, the being who is conscious.

If it were true that my existence depends on my asserting it, then it seems to follow that, since I can assert it any time or even, in principle, constantly, that the dependence is really on the possibility of assertion and not on actual instances of assertion, that is that it follows that I always exist—until the possibility of my asserting my existence is gone, when I am dead and no longer exist.

Kind of like Sartre? "I am the situation" — frank

This is interesting to consider; my Sartre is rusty but my recollection is that he (as with Foucault) is talking about a practical response to the state of our society as it stands, as in: protest, revolution, and what I take these authors to be getting at is the structural nature of being human, how that works. Not to negate Sartre from the conversation, as he also sees something necessary between the self and something social, but these authors address the (Kantian) conditions of our basic lives together; say--analogously, as I can't think of an example involving the self right now--not judging the injustice of our current institutions, but standing against (or for) our criteria for the judgment of justice at all (uberhapt). Worth further thought (and examples). Thank you.

I'm a mysterian, so, I have no issue with "being human is...beyond the judgment and criteria...of our cultural history. — Manuel

The relegation of our humanity to irrationality is driven by philosophy's desire to only consider what meets the prerequisites it sets of universality, abstraction, completeness, etc. as reasons. Wittgenstein shows us that our ordinary various criteria for judgment, under all the different things we do, allows everything to be discussed, explained, agreed on, specific, rigorous, "normative", etc. except at the point where they fail to cover all cases (extensions into new contexts), or where they reveal that we have another relation to the world, to others (their pain), our self, than knowing it (as if the self were a thing in me that I only need know, need explain); "beyond the limits of knowledge" for the self is not a mystery, because there is nothing more to know--I step into my future (yet out of or furthering our shared history**), for which I can provide reasons, make intelligible to you. **I said "sometimes beyond our criteria" as most of the time we just follow the ordinary way of things (conformity).

One only exists, when one asserts he thinks, therefore he exists. And other times, he doesn't. That sounds not valid. — Corvus

It might be easier to read through my responses to other posts (say here) first for the sense of "assertion" here. I'll just say that this is not proposing an argument, it is asserting myself; as: claiming authority for me, against conformity (the social contract).

Shouldn't Cogito be understood as a wider meaning such as consciousness which includes all the mental activities such as general mental awareness, perception, thinking and feeling ... etc rather than just think? In that case, One is conscious (feels, thinks), therefore one exists.
As long as one is conscious (feels, perceives, thinks), one exists. Because consciousness requires, by necessity, the being who is conscious. — Corvus

And this picture, here of "consciousness", is what I am claiming these authors are trying to get you to see past. "Consciousness" is a manufactured framework of the self as something that is mine, caused by the misconception that your "perception" is (perhaps) fundamentally different than mine (It might help to read this first). Now you will say, "but I feel this, and think, and am aware" and all that is true, but it is not the cause of the curfuffle. We are humans who have feelings and self-awareness and mental dialogue (which is not "thinking"; again, read the first post), but those are personal, not individual (we are not different by nature). The actual problem is that we sometimes just don't see eye-to-eye, but not that we can't. So if our "mental activities" are just there, without the need of their being "mine", as if special, than the need for the self as a constant thing goes away, replaced by the self as differentiated from our cultural expectations; i.e., I make myself me in relation to the past, our shared judgments, the implications of our activities and expressions, etc., or I am: a sheep, asleep, brainwashed, etc. (again, "existing" being a different matter). Good luck.

If it were true that my existence depends on my asserting it, then it seems to follow that, since I can assert it any time or even, in principle, constantly, that the dependence is really on the possibility of assertion and not on actual instances of assertion, that is that it follows that I always exist—until the possibility of my asserting my existence is gone, when I am dead and no longer exist. — Janus

First, that sounds exhausting. Now, you may express who you are by wearing clothes differently (or very well), but asking for the potatoes to be passed is not a moment for individuation. So the "possibility of assertion" is not constant, thus why Descartes says "whenever", as in: not always. Also, thinking is not our internal dialogue; I am judged as having thought about something when we have a problem (not "any time"), thus it is seen as timely, situational, deliberate, considering the expectations or implications, etc. Finally, the goal is not an argument for my "existence", as if that were a separate quality of things. It is in the sense of choosing how I will live my life, what I will get behind and what not.

@frank @Manuel It might help to read my response to Janus and Corvus above as I may have articulated better the essential difference between philosophy's standard "self" and what I am trying to point out here. I feel like I am muddling things as the act of defining myself against society could be interpreted as the same old picture that there is something about me that is unique or special that just needs to be known and then explained or communicated, rather than the act of standing for something different than the expectations of the social contract. (See I'm not sure that's any better.) I'll take a look at the texts again.

(or perhaps @bano or @Paine or @Sam26 can sort this out for me--any political philosophers?)