Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Philosophy The Self1 The Self1 1. What is the self, what does it mean to be a self? 2. Is there a difference between being yourself authentically versus inauthentically? If so, what is the difference? Abraham Lincoln once said that, if he had six hours to cut down a tree, he would spend the first five hours sharpening his axe. Likewise, any investigation into the ‘self’ requires, first and foremost, a thorough and clear preparation due to the difficult nature of an investigation into a matter or idea that has somewhat remained clouded in vague conceptions. In order, then, to arrive at a acceptable definition of the self, I will employ three key observations that should give me ample preparation for the main part of my investigation. Since any particular object can only be perceived if it has characteristics that sets it apart from other objects, I can use this observation as a starting point for my attempt to first to perceive and then to define what can be understood as the ‘self’. Since objects that can be defined are separate entities are, due to their very nature, limited, we must accordingly postulate that the ‘self’ is a limited entity as well, if we assume that it can be perceived and defined. Only once this has been done can a person go about and explore the deeper meanings and nature of the ‘self’. The next observation I would like to mention before I further delve into this matter is that every person perceives to have has some sort of ‘self’. We must assume that this holds true to every human being, as history has shown us so far that every person has some kind of focal point, which is the basis for his or her perception of ‘self’. No person known to us in western history had said the word “I” without having anything to refer to. The third observation, however, recognizes that each human being’s notion of their ‘self’ differs considerably from those of others. This does not mean, that the ‘self’ is in fact different for each human being. What it does mean, however, is that it is undoubtedly perceived differently by many individuals. It is now my task to further investigate why a person’s notion of the ‘self’ can be different from that of others, so that I may hope to arrive at a promising definition of the ‘self’. In light of the last observation, I would like to emphasize the possibility of a profound difference in what each person perceives to be the ‘self’ and the true nature of the ‘self’, since, as we have seen and understood in the last observation, perception of the ‘self’ may differ among people. When we recognize this, it becomes a possibility, then, that the ‘self’ perceived by the majority of human beings, might not resonate with the true nature of the ‘self’ at all. This further complicates an investigation, and it is critical to make this distinction at all times throughout this exploration if we want to arrive at an understanding of the true nature of the ‘self’. Holding this observation in mind, and combining it with the third key observation, we may assume that the perceived identity of the ‘self’ may exist simultaneously with the true nature of the ‘self’. This point gives ultimately rise to another point of view. We have postulated in the first key observation, that the ‘self’ is a finite entity. What if, however, the true nature of the ‘self’ has no limitations whatsoever? We are then not only able to distinguish it from anything else, but also unable to distinguish ‘ourselves’ from anything else. Yet this is not the case in the reality, as we perceive it, since there are, for example, obvious differences between us in the visible realm. However, this seeming contradiction becomes valid when we include our previous hypothesis, i.e. the possibility of a simultaneous existence of both the perceived ‘self’ and the true ‘self’. It is important to note, at this point, that we have not yet achieved a satisfactory definition of both the ‘self’ and the true ‘self’. But I hope, with the above preparation, to have at least sufficiently ‘sharpened my axe’ and will proceed to test these distilled ideas against both everyday life and the thoughts of the major philosophers studied in class in the hope that I may arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. It has been said that if there is such a thing as a binding force between the different non-visible elements in the universe it must be either gravity or love. This opinion is shared in part by Victor Frankl who stressed the importance of love and its binding properties in his book Man’s Search for Meaning. According to him, not only does love “go beyond the physical person of the beloved”, but it “finds its deepest meaning in his spiritual being, his inner self” (p. 58). Love, then, according to Frankl, has to do something with our ‘inner selves’, or our true ‘selves’, as it is in our true ‘selves’ that we can find the deepest meaning of love. And if, as Frankl suggests, “the salvation of man is through love and in love” (p. 57), the “salvation of man” must then lie somewhere within our true ‘self’. Frankl goes on to say that “the intensification of inner life helped the prisoner take refuge from the emptiness, desolation and spiritual poverty of his existence.” (p. 58) How then can persons get in touch with their true ‘self’ or, as Frankl put it, ‘intensify their inner life’? This is obviously a question of interest, as the primary focus of a number of people, if not of all people, throughout the history of mankind has been to find meaning in life and in suffering. At this point I would like to introduce Josef Pieper and his essay Leisure: The Basis of Culture. It was Pieper who stressed the importance of a leisurely reflection on life and on selfhood as opposed to activities that distract in order to reach our ‘real self’. This, he said, requires us to face any uncertainty we might have about ‘ourselves’. Work, however, tends to shield us from our true ‘selves’. Josef Pieper observes that we generally tend to use work as a means of distraction with which we create a ‘mental bubble’ that protects us from the sense of uncertainty we get through the contemplation of our selves. Combining the essence of the wisdom of the two above-mentioned philosophers, I would now like to further clarify what can be understood as the true ‘self’, and, if it exists, what can likewise be understood as the false ‘self’ or perceived ‘self’. Frankl suggested that love transcends all perceived boundaries. Here I would like to share an experience of my own that will help clarify the meaning of the true nature of our ‘selves’. Up until one year ago I always had a lot of problems with my mother. Our relationship, though much better than during my teenage years, was still quite frequently strained for reasons too manifold to be elaborated upon in this paper. Last summer then, I underwent a life-changing healing session with an advanced healer in which I instantly and profoundly realized that all the grudge I had held against my mother had, in reality, only been love in disguise! In some ways, the resentment I had felt against my mother had been nothing else but an expression of pure love that had been covered through the conceptions of hurt and pain that I had accepted into my life. I, myself, had never been bad or otherwise of imperfect nature because I had felt these sentiments against my mother. On the contrary, in truth these sentiments had merely covered what was a profound love towards my mother. It has been a short investigation, so far, into the true nature of the ‘self’. I believe, however, that, at this point, we have covered sufficient material to at least make a tentative assumption. We have gathered, from all the logical deductions made in the first part, that there may exist a perceived ‘self’ and a true ‘self’. In addition to this, Frankl suggested that the true ‘self’ was where the deepest meaning of love could be found. And both Frankl and Pieper recommended that the contemplation of the inner life is crucial to perceiving the true nature of the ‘self’. And, last but not least, I have given an account of one healing experience and the profound realization that came with it. Taking all of these observations together, I would like to make a tentative definition of the ‘self’: I postulate, that the true ‘self’ is love, and nothing but love. Since, at a deeper level of reality, nothing but love exists, there must exist an infinite oneness, such as the one described by all sages and prophets throughout history. Bibliography: Victor Frankl: "Man's Search for Meaning" Joseph Pieper: "Leisure as a Basis for Culture" Word Count: 1485
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.