THE SELF DOES NOT EXIST

There have been philosophers who have claimed that the self simply does not
exist at all. These philosophers have been led to such a position by the fact that
there is no precise object of experience that we can point to which is the self.
Humes first attack on the self argues that there is no impression of the self. And if there is one,
it is constantly in flux and hence there is no constant and non-changing thing which we can call
the self.
If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the
same, through the whole course of our lives since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But
there is no impression constant and invariable.1
For David Hume, there is actually no self. The self that we know and we identity
ourselves as is merely an illusion mainly because there is no permanence. The
self that you think of is not the same self-one year ago, one month ago, one day
ago or even one second ago. There is no impression that is constant and invariable.
For example, a particular dish that we used to like so much does not appeal to us
anymore. Thus the claim that I, Arjan, like this xxx is merely illusory and will not
hold true permanently. Your crush today will not be your crush next month. Nothing
is constant. Walang forever. So in that sense, since there is no permanence of the
self, walang forever sa self, then it follows according to David Hume, there is no self.
(Do you agree)
THE SELF IS MERELY A STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Another philosophical position affirms that the self is made up entirely of a stream of
consciousness, a constant flow of many experiences and inner feelings. Since these feelings
and experiences are always changing this position affirms that there is no permanent self
and no set structure to the self. Accordingly, when we speak of a "self" we are merely
referring to these ever-changing experiences.

This thing which we refer to as the self, is nothing more than the perceptions which are available
to our memory. We take these perceptions and recombine them into meaning and substance
using our previous experience as a guide. Unfortunately, Hume says that this previous
experience relies entirely on the principle of cause and effect which itself is not proof of its truth.
We view them as a distinct thing but they are only connected together by resemblance,
contiguity, or causation.2
Another position, again this seems to be from David Hume, is that even if there is a
self, it is simply a stream of consciousness, an influx of data. There is no such thing
really as the self because our life is only a constant reception of information. For
example, right now, you feel the coldness of the air con. You see the light that is
coming in from outside. You hear me speaking. Supposed you are deprived of all
these senses, sense of touch, sense of sight and all other senses, can you say there
is a self? That is the logic behind Humes thinking. Here is Humes example:

1 http://utintrotophilosophy.blogspot.com/2006/02/david-hume-there-is-no-self.html

2 http://utintrotophilosophy.blogspot.com/2006/02/david-hume-there-is-no-self.html
Hume says that in an extremely deep sleep with no dreams that our perception of self ceases to
exist. This means that if we remove all of our perceptions there is nothing left, no self 3.
(Do you agree?)
THE AUTHOR DISAGREES

Such an approach is mistaken because it presumes that only objects exist. For in
experience we are not only of objects but also of subjects. We are aware not only of
things which are known (objects) but also knowers, subjects which know these
things.
So in this part of the article, the author, counters the philosophy of David Hume,
rather than presenting a very thorough logical argument with intuition. He is saying
that there is something within our experience that would tell us otherwise. There is
something within us that we really can say that we are not nonexistent. We are not
merely a stream of consciousness. There is something that is fundamentally wrong
with that thinking. It does not connect with our experiences.

Intuition as defined: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intuition

: a natural ability or power that makes it possible to know something without any proof or evidence :
a feeling that guides a person to act a certain way without fully understanding why

: something that is known or understood without proof or evidence

Its not only through logic that is employed when you are studying philosophy or
philosophizing. There can be wisdom in intuition. The discussion in the article as to
the merits of David Humes philosophy is quite short. But depending on whose side
youre on, that is a different discussion. For now, lets just take it as it is. The author
disagrees with those kinds of thinking based on intuition. Meaning human
experiences tells us otherwise.
Although it is true that human experience are constantly changing and the self itself takes
part in these changes there does seem to be something which "I" and "you" stand for apart
from the changing experience themselves. There is more to "me" than just a feeling of
pleasure or anger or desire. The self does seem to possess certain distinctive structures,
within which these changing experiences are found.

Michael Moga is saying, granted that the self is always changing, there does seem
to be something which "I" and "you" stand for apart from the changing experience
themselves. Take note of the language he uses there does seem to be something,
meaning he himself cannot point out to this something with precision, precisely

3 http://utintrotophilosophy.blogspot.com/2006/02/david-hume-there-is-no-self.html
because his contention really is based on intuition. For him there are distinctive
structures within the self that cannot be denied.
(Can you give an example of an aspect of your life that seems to be constantly
changing? Meaning is a part of your self that you find Iba ngayon, iba bukas, iba
next week Can you give an example of something in your life that is permanent?
Meaning for as long as I can remember)
THE SELF AS AN EGO SELF
The self is sometimes experienced as a self-enclosed reality. Something which exists by
itself separated from all other beings. Such a self is permanent, maintaining a certain basic
identity as time passes. We can call this type of self an "ego".

This experience of an "ego" self carries with it a precise sense of location. As an ego I sense
myself to be "here," looking out at the other things around me in the world, things which are
"there," I experiences the ego as a "presence," my presence, which spreads itself out over
those limited area which I experience to be "me". There may be other selves that are
"present" around me but the places of these selves are separate from me and do not
overlap my presence.

First aspect of the ego: The ego has a sense of location

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ego: the self especially as contrasted with another self
or the world

The discussion begins with something very basic and in consonance with our
experience: the self has a location. And you just have to take that statement quite
literally. I am here. I am not there. I am not in the library. Now because of this sense
of location, a certain boundary is created. I am different from this chair. I am
different from that table. I am a different entity from each of you. Even if you are so
close to a person that you feel you are already one and the same, you cannot deny
the experience of the ego self, a clear and definite you. So this experience creates a
boundary between you and the place you are in, you and the objects you are
surrounded and you and the people you are surrounded.
This experience of self as "ego" emphasizes the separateness of human existence. As an ego I am set
apart from everything else an opposed to everything else. No one else and no other thing is precisely
"here" where I am. This separateness is revealed in the privateness of the ego's experiences

All the experiences of an ego self are contained within a certain area of consciousness. This within is cut
off from what is without; the world of outside things and the world of other people.

Second aspect of the ego: The ego has a sense of privacy

Because we have a precise feeling of location, this also creates a sense of privacy.
What is outside of yourself cannot have an access what is inside yourself. The
people around you will not have a ready access to your thoughts and feelings as
long as you do not open yourself. This means that as an ego self you have this
boundary that cannot be breached.
This sense of privacy is something that we value. We do not open up just about to
anyone. We only share our thoughts and innermost feelings to those we are close to
our family to our friends. We are afraid to be vulnerable in front of a person.
This sense of a place for the self is similar to the animal kingdom's sense of "turf". A wolf
pack, for instance, establishes a certain area which is its own private place. All other wolves
and animals must respect this turf and stay away from it.

So this sense of privacy we are talking about, it is not limited to ourselves

personally it also identifies to things to which we attach a sense of ourselves to.
There are things which we considered personal or private. Just like a wolf who
protects its territory, we do not simply allow anyone to enter our rooms or read our
messages. Even if you consider yourself as an open book, our experience would tell
us that privacy is something that the ego values.
Third aspect of the ego: The ego has a sense of isolation
This ego self on hand, sense of privacy, which we value, but it also creates a certain
frustration: it creates a sense of isolation