The self is a hard concept to grasp when thought about deeply. What is it about us that makes us uniquely us? There is no good definition for the self that maintains its integrity through time. The best I’ve been able to propose is: a semi-unique set of dynamic patterns. But let us explore this concept further to see how difficult a problem this really is.
We can try to define ourselves in terms of our physical makeup. The unique shape of our body. The color of our eyes. The texture of our hair. But we quickly run into a problem. All these physical attributes can and do change throughout life. Your height and weight are obvious examples. They differ dramatically from birth to death. Some lose limbs during a war. Others report changes to their hair texture after chemotherapy. And then there’s plastic surgery, a tool that can reshape our physical appearance to the point of nonrecognition.
At what point of morphological change do we consider ourselves a different self? Are there multiple physical selves? The infant, child and adult self? Things get even more complicated when we realize that the molecules and cells that comprise our physical makeup, turnover continuously throughout our life. Physical attributes, then, seem like a pretty shaky concept to anchor ourselves to.
Maybe it is our behavior then; the behavioral patterns that seem to be relatively unique for each of us. But again, a problem arises. Behavior is altered by experience, mood and health. You might’ve been warm and open as a teenager, but have grown to become a bitter old lady. You might be extremely nice to your family, but a complete tyrant in the eyes of your employees. At one time, you were sharp as a tack, but are now dull and lethargic due to the ravages of age.
And there’s a further complication.
Since you are the only individual that has a complete account of your entire set of behaviors and memories, it would seem that you should be the best judge of your own character. You might think of yourself as a kind, generous and loving person. Meanwhile, your ex-girlfriend might take great issue with that assessment. As it turns out, we are all subject to personal biases that distort our perception of self. Oftentimes, we can’t even rationalize why we’ve done certain things. For these reasons, behavioral patterns are also ephemeral for the solidity of self that we seek.
What’s left then? A spirit? A soul that remains consistent throughout eternity? I can’t comment on such things since I don’t truly understand what is meant when they are called to argument. However, I would suggest that we should discard useless and shapeless terminology that seems to shift its definition to counteract the criticism leveraged against it.
We might conclude then, that there is no self and I think we would be justified in doing so. There is no singular, static dimension that can accurately describe and capture the complexity of an individual through time. Instead, it would be safe to say that there are a multitude of selves that are created, modified and destroyed throughout our lifetime. These selves might even co-exist and compete with each other for dominance. Something to remember the next time you’re dieting and are tempted to indulge in that slice of cake.
The self is a hallucination and any hallucination taken seriously enough, will become one’s reality. The self is a semi-unique set of dynamic patterns subject to external and internal positive and negative reinforcement loops. The self is a complex, artificial construct that doesn’t really exist.
This post is a rewrite of the post “The Concept of the Self” from May 25, 2017.