Ideas of the self continue to bewilder. Philosophy, so often disengaged with the real word,
becomes starkly relevant when we consider, for example, the daily tribulations of
dementia sufferers and carers, and their very real concerns about
identity.
Julian Baggini's The Ego Trick
contains a very nice summary of
one apparent problem facing notions of the self,
“Therein lies a paradox of any view
of the self which puts psychological continuity at its core. On such
views,radical discontinuity destroys it. But if there is no hardcore
of self, and it is always in flux, then as long as the change is
gradual, two very different stages in a person's life can
legitimately be seen as stages in the life of one self.” (pg.56)
To paraphrase wikipedia, a paradox is
a statement that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies logic or reason. Baggini rightly
highlights the importance of the “paradox” which arises from a
common notion of the self. However, I think the solution is to realise
it is no true paradox as such. There is in fact nothing contradictory
about holding that the self survives across long term change, whilst
also holding that it cannot survive certain rapid and/or sufficient
kinds of change. This is is possible when we abandon essentialist
criteria, the idea that there is a fundamental core or “pearl” of
the self to be discovered, rather than a composite entity arising
from memory and cognition. Instead, the self becomes vague; a complex
phenomena resulting from our biologically circumstantial cognitive
apparatus and our relationship with others. Whereas the essentialist
view leads us to believe there must be definite conditions when the
self remains the same or not, the alternative frees us to the see the
self as far more confusing.
In everyday life it's always clear that
the person we saw yesterday is still the same person today. And yet
it is not hard to conjure situations where it seems clear they are
not. In between there are fuzzy grey areas, fuzzy and grey not
because we don't understand the truth about the self not because we
lack the understanding about the essential nature of the self, but
because there is no truth about the matter, there is no essential
nature of the self.
 |
| Traditional views of an essential self include the idea of the soul, prevalent at least in West, and enduring. |
Much of what determines our feelings of
a continuous, pervasive self in ourselves and others, must surely be
the result of useful adaption. Even species with a simple social life
have the need to track and distinguish other particular members as
continuous entities, despite physical and behavioural changes over
time. Within astonishingly elaborate human society this basic remains
true, but is compounded with myriad complexities that come with
higher awareness and profound relationships. This complexity creates
uncertainty and confusion, strengthened by our own intuitions that
there must be an essential
part of ourselves which, once understood, will enlighten us to
the mysteries of the self. Our evolved psychology may well predispose
us to viewing the person as having an essential core. But by clinging
to this idea within philosophy we become confused. This intuition may well be a useful adaption, but it does not
follow that it reveals anything metaphysically true.
 | |
| The Sorities Paradox. Abandoning essentialist criteria and embracing vagueness may cast light on apparent contradictions. |
Of course there is nothing wrong with calling the apparent discontinuity of conclusions about the self
a paradox, or to be continually puzzled by it. That is an inevitable
part of the nebulous self and the human condition. Anyone who has
experienced the development of dementia within a loved one (an issue
Baggini discusses at length) will understand the conflicted feelings
one can feel about the identity of the sufferer.
Is the
dementia sufferer the same person they once were? Within the delicate scenarios this question may be raised there may be well founded and pragmatic reasons
for assuming one or the other, the reasonableness of which will be
relative to the stage and context of the sufferer's illness.
Sometimes it may be clear that our loved one is the same person they
always were. Changed perhaps. But still them.
Unfortunately it is not always so clear. Sometimes it will be hard
to say. Every carer has a different perspective, seldom are any of
them wrong. That is just the peculiar, sometimes painful nature of
the self.
-->
Baggini, J (2011) The Ego Trick
Granta Publications: London
