What is meant by 'you'

[Existentialist]

A few of conversations I've have had in various forums have led me to think about what is meant by 'you' - by which I mean, how far does one's being, or personality extend?  It seems to me there are probably several models, but I'll just outline two for the sake of argument.

In existentialism, the concept of existence precedes essence defines a person.  This means that a person first exists, and subsequently acquires characteristics that define who they are.   In religious models of the self, what is a human is defined by an external intelligence - ie god.  In the existentialist model, god doesn't exist, therefore a person is wholly responsible for themselves, for their choices and for their actions.

Obviously there are certain things like DNA that dictate our bodily form, and the fact that we are alive and some other existential 'givens' like our bodily functions and ageing.  But the existentialist says that we are responsible for all our choices and actions in life, and it is our actions that define who we are.

The concept of 'you' is therefore 'the sum of your actions' - which includes you choices on your direction, but also what you do to others, what you say, what you write and other things that you actually do.  Existentialists dismiss the idea that there is any model of a person that can be separated from their actions.

It therefore doesn't make sense at all for a teacher or a parent to say to a child "I'm not disapproving of you, I'm disapproving of your behaviour."  Or at least, it doesn't make sense in the existential model, which is what I live my life by.  The teacher/parent example I've given is based on the judaeo-christian model (the one which, let's face it, we are all indoctrinated into).  This model divides a persons actions from themself - the two things are separate, because there is a concept of the 'self' which has been created, and whose character has been given by god.  

Equally it doesn't make sense for a forum user to say, "I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your arguments."  Since my arguments are the manifestation of my actions, they are, in effect, me.  So "I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting your stupid arguments" wouldn't be a very genuine statement - if the existentialist model were accepted as applying to everyone.

This isn't to say that someone isn't free to attack my arguments or even to insult them if they want.  Existentialists, in saying that a person is wholly responsible for their actions, say that this absolute responsibility is also accompanied by absolute freedom.  People are absolutely free to say to me whatever they want, and I am absolutely free to say what I want back, or not as the case may be.

Obviously in signing up for most forums (even existentialist ones) we all agree to basic standards of conduct, so we can't expect that exercising our freedom won't result in consequences.  Such are the dilemmas of the human condition.  

Anyway, that's the outline of what I'm talking about.  Obviously there are details that I haven't had time to mention, I just wondered what your thoughts are.

[Wilson]

This isn't quite on the subject of this thread, but it has to do with existentialism.  I've never had much luck in grasping what the extentialist philosophy is all about.  Definitions seem all over the place.  As you indicated, part of it is that we are the choices we make, but that seems kind of obvious to me, unless I'm missing something that's too deep for me to grasp.  

However, the term that does seem to coincide with what I believe, and what many atheists believe, is: existential nihilism.  Wikipedia says:  "Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life[1] is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived."  

In the absence of God, I believe that there cannot be any objective, universal morality nor any objective, universal purpose to life.  While that understanding may lead some to angst and a sense of absurdity - insecurity and depression because of the meaningless of life - in my case it doesn't.  I have my own concept of morality, which doesn't involve God and is based largely on empathy, and it seems a pretty firm base to stand on.  I feel that living a satisfying and happy life is the only purpose we'll ever have, and I'm fine with that.  

So nihilism has a rather negative connotation to it, but by its definition fairly aptly describes what I believe, and I suspect that many if not most atheists believe.

With regard to your discussion about what constitutes a person, as we make choices and learn and grow, we change - but certain internal capabilities are inherent - intelligence, creativity, empathy, tendency to risk take, and so on.  So in my opinion we are all messy combinations of nature and nurture, and we have to deal with others as they are now, almost without regard to how they got to what they are currently.

[TheJackel]

The simple argument is:

What are you made of?  

Many theists like to think that the mind is somehow "non-material". Hence, not made of anything to where religious people fall under the category of nihilism in literal context. They create this logical fallacy and then claim it is an Atheist that is magically into nihilism. However purpose or phenomenon can not exist without material physicality, because nothing can not be existent or a person, place, substance, object, entity, or thing! I have gone over this with Will before in regards to material-physicality. But the interesting thing about this is that from an Atheist/materialist/realist point of view, we will always have a purpose even after we die, or even if we are no-longer conscious entities. This is where that which we are made of will always exist and serve a purpose. What we are made of will become that of something else. That could perhaps become the fuel that ignites a new star to which gives rise to new life!

Example:

Does a tree still exist if it is cut down and burned as firewood? Technically everything that made the tree will always exist. All the matter and energy that made the tree will continue on, and become emergent or bound to other things. Purpose is never lost, and is always self-attained, and self-attaining. So the purpose of existence is simply to exist because the opposite is impossible.

1) I =: reference to all information that gives I an Identity, substance, value, an awareness, an existence, an intelligence, or a consciousness.
2) Information =: the very core cause to everything, and to which also gives things like consciousness value, existence, substance, complexity, structure, ability, intelligence, knowledge, awareness, the ability to choose, the ability to make decisions, the ability to think, the ability to do, have free will (to some extent), or to be what it is entirely. Without it, there can be no existence, and that is impossible since nothing can not literally ever exist!
3) Energy =/= Information: Both substance and value. Two sides of the same coin. It's the literal source to all person's, places, and things. It's all matter, energy, or things with mass. It's every dimensional value. it's the core to all attributes, phenomenon, and processes! It is the sum total of all existence!

[hackenslash]

You speak of existentialism as if there's only one model. That can't be accurate, so which model of existentialism are you talking about? Certainly, there is nothing in existentialism that precludes belief in a deity, and indeed Pascal and even Augustine are considered to be forerunners, of existentialism. Are you suggesting that St Augustine's model had no deity? Are you suggesting the same of Pascal, author of the most ridiculous bit of apologetic arse-gravy in the history of non-thought, didn't believe in his own preposterous wager?

Kierkegaard, widely regarded as the first true existentialist, also believed in a deity.

Frankly, this sounds like more made-up nonsense.

[wildfire_emissary]

I think the "you" is a pronoun used to refer to a person outside one's self. If it is an object, it is a "that" or an "it."  

[Existentialist]

This isn't quite on the subject of this thread, but it has to do with existentialism.  I've never had much luck in grasping what the extentialist philosophy is all about.  Definitions seem all over the place.  As you indicated, part of it is that we are the choices we make, but that seems kind of obvious to me, unless I'm missing something that's too deep for me to grasp.  

However, the term that does seem to coincide with what I believe, and what many atheists believe, is: existential nihilism.  Wikipedia says:  "Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life[1] is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived."  

In the absence of God, I believe that there cannot be any objective, universal morality nor any objective, universal purpose to life.  While that understanding may lead some to angst and a sense of absurdity - insecurity and depression because of the meaningless of life - in my case it doesn't.  I have my own concept of morality, which doesn't involve God and is based largely on empathy, and it seems a pretty firm base to stand on.  I feel that living a satisfying and happy life is the only purpose we'll ever have, and I'm fine with that.  

So nihilism has a rather negative connotation to it, but by its definition fairly aptly describes what I believe, and I suspect that many if not most atheists believe.

With regard to your discussion about what constitutes a person, as we make choices and learn and grow, we change - but certain internal capabilities are inherent - intelligence, creativity, empathy, tendency to risk take, and so on.  So in my opinion we are all messy combinations of nature and nurture, and we have to deal with others as they are now, almost without regard to how they got to what they are currently.

Thanks Wilson, I agree that definitions are all over the place.  If objectivity is not possible, then this is as it should be.  When I speak of existentialism, I mean my existentialism.  Others may understand some of what I am talking about, depending on how their thoughts on the subject have developed.  I don't think existentialism or even any branch of it can be successfully summarised by a set of tenets.  In that sense it's a flexible philosophy.  Even some notable existentialists, for example Emmy Van Deuzen, say the concept of empathy doesn't exist.  But there again, by empathy you may mean something different from her.  That's what makes it a really interesting philosophy.  I'd challenge anybody to understand it fully.

[Existentialist]

I think the "you" is a pronoun used to refer to a person outside one's self. If it is an object, it is a "that" or an "it."  

Thanks w_e for answering the question I posed in the subject heading.  

Do feel free to have a read of my opening post as well and let me know your thoughts on some of the ideas I have posed there.  I value your thoughts.

[Existentialist]

The simple argument is:

What are you made of?  

Many theists like to think that the mind is somehow "non-material". Hence, not made of anything to where religious people fall under the category of nihilism in literal context. They create this logical fallacy and then claim it is an Atheist that is magically into nihilism. However purpose or phenomenon can not exist without material physicality, because nothing can not be existent or a person, place, substance, object, entity, or thing! I have gone over this with Will before in regards to material-physicality. But the interesting thing about this is that from an Atheist/materialist/realist point of view, we will always have a purpose even after we die, or even if we are no-longer conscious entities. This is where that which we are made of will always exist and serve a purpose. What we are made of will become that of something else. That could perhaps become the fuel that ignites a new star to which gives rise to new life!

Example:

Does a tree still exist if it is cut down and burned as firewood? Technically everything that made the tree will always exist. All the matter and energy that made the tree will continue on, and become emergent or bound to other things. Purpose is never lost, and is always self-attained, and self-attaining. So the purpose of existence is simply to exist because the opposite is impossible.

1) I =: reference to all information that gives I an Identity, substance, value, an awareness, an existence, an intelligence, or a consciousness.
2) Information =: the very core cause to everything, and to which also gives things like consciousness value, existence, substance, complexity, structure, ability, intelligence, knowledge, awareness, the ability to choose, the ability to make decisions, the ability to think, the ability to do, have free will (to some extent), or to be what it is entirely. Without it, there can be no existence, and that is impossible since nothing can not literally ever exist!
3) Energy =/= Information: Both substance and value. Two sides of the same coin. It's the literal source to all person's, places, and things. It's all matter, energy, or things with mass. It's every dimensional value. it's the core to all attributes, phenomenon, and processes! It is the sum total of all existence!

Thanks for this - I'm out of time at the moment but will consider in more detail when I next access the internet.  Cheers.

[TheJackel]

Thanks for this - I'm out of time at the moment but will consider in more detail when I next access the internet. Cheers.

Not a problem However, I think existentialism tries to be too unrealistic in regards to human nature and emotion, as in it doesn't seem to realize that pure happiness is never really an achievable goal because the virtue of our nature. So I think the realistic goal is to find the best possible level of happiness you can achieve while knowing the ultimate goal would be an unfair expectation of yourself to reach. And I think one of those obstacles of despair come when one expects one's self to reach such an impossible goal of pure bliss.

[Wilson]

Thanks Wilson, I agree that definitions are all over the place.  If objectivity is not possible, then this is as it should be.  When I speak of existentialism, I mean my existentialism.  Others may understand some of what I am talking about, depending on how their thoughts on the subject have developed.  I don't think existentialism or even any branch of it can be successfully summarised by a set of tenets.  In that sense it's a flexible philosophy.  Even some notable existentialists, for example Emmy Van Deuzen, say the concept of empathy doesn't exist.  But there again, by empathy you may mean something different from her.  That's what makes it a really interesting philosophy.  I'd challenge anybody to understand it fully.

My general idea of the common ground of existentialism is that each person is responsible for his own approach to life: his own moral system, his own sense of purpose, and his own striving for happiness - and that there's no way to prove that one person's approach is any better or worse, in an absolute sense, than another's.  This leads some existentialists - but not all - to think that life is absurd and depressing, which is what many lay descriptions of existentialism focus on.  There is apparently a lot of overlap with nihilism, and my worldview - and that of many other atheists, and maybe even a few nonconventional religious people - is in there somewhere.

Existentialist, why don't you tell us as concisely as possible what your belief system is - what your version of existentialism is - and how it might differ from what I wrote above.

[terranus]

People are absolutely free to say to me whatever they want

Don't tempt me... :hmm:

[Existentialist]

People are absolutely free to say to me whatever they want

Don't tempt me... :hmm:

Existentialism seems to me to be based on the possibility that we might all be suffering from schizophrenia or some other mental illness.  None of us can rely on our perceptions, which is why concepts like evidence or proof are at best only of temporary usefulness in very limited situations.  To rely on the soundness of these concepts for anything so massive as whether god exists or not is absurd.

[Existentialist]

Existentialist, why don't you tell us as concisely as possible what your belief system is - what your version of existentialism is - and how it might differ from what I wrote above.

I'm not ignoring you Wilson, I'm working on it.  I may be some time.  Some considerable time.

[Wilson]

No problem, Existentialist.  I look forward to hearing from you.

[penfold]

Kierkegaard, widely regarded as the first true existentialist, also believed in a deity.

Damn straight. I love Kierkegaard, so often overlooked, but to my mind the greatest of the existentialist thinkers; Fear and Trembling changed my life.

A few of conversations I've have had in various forums have led me to think about what is meant by 'you' - by which I mean, how far does one's being, or personality extend?

This is such an interesting question. For me the key concept is extention. The self apparently extends out into space, and moves through time. It appears distinct from the universe - duality; and yet is inescapably a part of the universe - unity.

So, do you think there is there a sharp line in the cosmos between that which is you and that which is not you?