Self?

 

Evaporating locomotive at night, 1896, Hermann Pleuer (1863–1911)

”… we are sometimes inclined to say that some of the thoughts, decisions and actions that we undertake are not really one’s own …”


Source: SEP

What does this mean? Authenticity, in its strongest sense, implies being of unquestionable origin or creator. In a slightly weaker sense, it means being akin to the original or serving as a credible representation. When we declare something as authentic, we affirm that it is exactly what it claims to be.

These are potent words. If one is of unquestionable origin or creator, they possess something of indisputable value. However, if one merely resembles the original, their value diminishes. They are no longer the creator but a mere semblance of one. If one lacks authenticity entirely, they are devoid of creative essence and fail even as a credible representation or likeness of the original. They become mundane.

What does it mean to be oneself or akin to the original? When one thinks and feels, it is an act of self-expression. It is impossible to do anything without being the one who does it. Yet, nearly all individuals experience a sense that some thoughts and feelings are not truly theirs. It's as if one's authentic self is a core composed of specific thoughts and emotions, while other thoughts unrelated to this core are transient. When one acts in alignment with this core, they act as themselves or akin to the original. But if one is akin to the original, what, then, is the original?

"Another decisive factor in the development of the ideal of authenticity was that it emerged together with a distinctively modern conception of the self. This is visible in the work of Rousseau, who argues that the orientation toward life that should guide the conduct one chooses should come from a source within. This led to questions about inwardness, self-reflection, and introspection, many of them addressed in his Confessions (1770). When the space of interiority becomes a guiding authority, the individual must detect and distinguish central impulses, feelings, and wishes from ones that are less central or conflict with one’s central motives. In other words, interiority must be divided into what is at the core and what is peripheral."

Source: SEP

These ideas delve into something I've pondered for a long time. Thoughts that come and go seem less like "me" than the thoughts I consciously choose to think. It feels very distinct, as if the self is a core, isolated from the passing thoughts. In the inner chamber of the mind reside thoughts, feelings, and the self. I, as the self, engage with these thoughts and emotions.

In the outer realms, thoughts and emotions come and go. If I am to be guided by my inner self, I must discern what belongs to my core and what exists in the periphery. For instance, desires exert a significant influence. Right now, I'm eager to watch TV as it would satisfy certain urges I have. My emotions pull me toward it, and my thoughts sometimes waver, distracting me from what I write here. What I'm currently writing is far less satisfying to my needs. Why don't I simply indulge in watching TV? It's because I'm not governed by every passing thought or feeling that traverses my mind.

That was my point. I am not controlled by every thought that enters my mind. But if I am not ruled by my thoughts, then who am I, the one thinking this?And am I sometimes more myself?

"... in addition, in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau argues that, with the emergence of a competitive public sphere, the ability to turn inward is increasingly compromised because competitive relations require intense role-playing, which Rousseau calls an 'excessive labor' .

Source: SEP

In essence, Rousseau suggests that in environments where one is expected not to be themselves, the ability to delve inward is hindered.

So, what does it mean to be authentic? To be genuine to oneself. But what constitutes the self? I believe the self is both a compilation of our accumulated experiences and something that predates them. It's like a piece of data stored in the human psyche, passed down through generations, defining who we are.

Let me expand on my notion of a dualistic core. Yes, it is highly likely that the core of every individual, if it exists, is comprised of condensed experiences that form the "self." However, one could argue that there must be an innate component as well. Otherwise, there would be too much variation among individuals. It appears that there are certain elements that unite us all: the concept of eternity, the longing for the stars, the need for protection, and the creation of cities. While many are rooted in needs, isn't it plausible that all these commonalities among humans are passed down through generations and not solely learned through experience? The risk of deviation from what is typically human would be too great if everything were learned anew with each generation.

So could there be innate ideas inherent in our minds? 

Neuroscientists at the Blue Brain Project have uncovered evidence supporting innatism. They found that neurons transmit signals regardless of an individual's experiences. It was previously assumed that neural circuits form when an individual's experiences are imprinted in the brain to create memories. Researchers at the Blue Brain Project identified a network of around fifty neurons, which they believed were the foundational building blocks of more complex knowledge. These neurons contained basic, innate knowledge that could be combined in various complex ways to give rise to acquired knowledge, such as memory. Scientists conducted tests on the neuronal circuits of multiple rats and found that if these circuits had formed solely based on each rat's individual experiences, the tests would have yielded vastly different results for each rat. However, all the rats exhibited similar characteristics, suggesting that their neuronal circuits must have been established prior to their experiences – it must be inborn, predating their experiences. The Blue Brain Project's research suggests that some of these "building blocks" of knowledge are genetic and present at birth.

See: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

See also: Innatism and nativism 

Plato's Theory of Ideas

Plato posited that the idea of beauty is more real than any individual's physical beauty because physical beauty is relative and subject to change. The idea of beauty, however, remains beautiful, regardless of one's interpretation. In other words, could one interpret Plato as suggesting that the true reality is entirely subjective and only accessible to us through our senses? 

Plato's Cave Concept

Imagine a cave where people have been chained since childhood, although not from birth. They are immobilized so that their necks and heads face one direction, compelling them to gaze in that direction exclusively. Behind the prisoners, a fire burns. Between the fire and the prisoners, there is an elevated walkway where individuals walk carrying various shapes and figures, much like a puppet show. These figures resemble humans and other entities. The prisoners can't see what lies behind them; they only see the shadows cast on the wall in front of them. The sounds made by those passing with the figures are heard by the prisoners, who believe these sounds emanate from the shadows.

For these prisoners, these shadows constitute their reality. They are unaware that they see shadowy forms, not the actual objects beyond the cave they inhabit. It's possible to escape the cave, to break free from the constraints. Philosophers have that opportunity. A few can become the individuals who create the shadows. When someone emerges from the cave, they are initially blinded but eventually see reality as it truly is, beyond the mere shadows.

The shadows constitute the reality for the cave dwellers because they do not remember seeing anything else.

This concept evokes several thoughts in me. Firstly, it seems plausible in a symbolic sense. What if we are akin to prisoners who only perceive shadows of the reality around us? Plato discusses the puppeteer who orchestrates a puppet show for us. I sense a parallel with the mind's shadow play, the countless beliefs I've held over the years, which now seem so evidently mere shadows. But these are the mind's shadows; I'm not so blinded that I cannot see beyond them. What of the world as perceived by my senses? What if my brain can only grasp a tiny fraction of reality, so minuscule that it cannot even comprehend the true essence of things? Plato believed that the only way to see beyond the cave was through reason.

 © Anders Enochsson