egovoru | Я, я, я! Что за дикое слово!

По мнению Франсиско Варелы, «все рефлексивные традиции в человеческой истории – философия, наука, психоанализ, религия, медитация – подвергают сомнению наше наивное представление о «я» как о субъекте». Подтверждение он находит у Дэвида Юма, объявившего «я» несуществующим.

Юм задается вопросом, какое именно ощущение порождает у нас идею собственного «я»? Это ощущение должно постоянно присутствовать в течение всей нашей жизни; но постоянных ощущений не бывает – одно ощущение быстро сменяется другим. А раз такого постоянного ощущения нет, то нет и никакого «я».

Признаюсь, меня это рассуждение не убеждает. Действительно, ощущения тепла, холода, горя, радости длятся относительно недолго – но ведь ощущение собственного «я» сопровождает нас всю сознательную жизнь? Почему нужно считать «я» идеей, требующей вывода из какого-то ощущения, а не собственно ощущением? Не говоря уже о том, что бессмысленно говорить об ощущениях в отсутствие субъекта, который их ощущает.

Учебное видео внизу поясняет важную деталь, не упомянутую Варелой: что Юм отрицал не существование «я» как такового, а только то, что «я» не является субстанцией. Субстанция же в метафизике – это нечто неизменное, существование которого не зависит от существования ничего другого. А как же πάντα ρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει?

Учебное видео с более подробным изложением «я»-концепции Юма

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

lj-frank-bot.livejournal.com

Hello!
LiveJournal categorization system detected that your entry belongs to the following categories: Психология (https://www.livejournal.com/category/psihologiya?utm_source=frank_comment), Философия (https://www.livejournal.com/category/filosofiya?utm_source=frank_comment).
If you think that this choice was wrong please reply this comment. Your feedback will help us improve system.
Frank,
LJ Team

From:

egovoru.livejournal.com

Очень хорошо, Фрэнк!

From:

marigranula.livejournal.com

На сколько я понимаю, Юм боролся с идеей "я" как именно с продолжением идеи души, что в человеке есть нечто постоянное. Согласитесь, что по факту мое или Ваше "я" являются не более чем каким-то хитросплетением синапсов, которое постоянно меняется :)) Какие-то откусываются микроглией, какие-то вырастают по новой, в каких-то меняется количество рецепторов..... Юм просто не очень хорошо относился к религиозным идеям...... Вот Вам воспоминания Адама Смита о его разговоре с умирающим Юмом:

[W]hen [Hume] was reading a few days before, Lucian’s Dialogues of the Dead, among all the excuses which are alleged to Charon for not entering readily into his boat, he could not find one that fitted him; he had no house to finish, he had no daughter to provide for, he had no enemies upon whom he wished to revenge himself. “I could not well imagine,” said he, “what excuse I could make to Charon in order to obtain a little delay. I have done every thing of consequence which I ever meant to do, and I could at no time expect to leave my relations and friends in a better situation than that in which I am now likely to leave them; I, therefore, have all reason to die contented.” He then diverted himself with inventing several jocular excuses, which he supposed he might make to Charon, and with imagining the very surly answers which it might suit the character of Charon to return to them. “Upon further consideration,” said he, “I thought I may say to him, Good Charon, I have been correcting my works for a new edition. Allow me a little time, that I may see how the Public receives the alterations.” But Charon would answer, “When you have seen the effect of these, you will be for making other alterations. There will be no end of such excuses; so, honest friend, please step into the boat.” But I might still urge, “Have a little patience, Good Charon, I have been endeavouring to open the eyes of the Public. If I live a few years longer, I may have the satisfaction of seeing the downfall of some of the prevailing systems of superstition.” But Charon would then lose all temper and decency. “You loitering rogue, that will not happen these many hundred years. Do you fancy I will grant you a lease for so long a term? Get into the boat this instant, you lazy loitering rogue.”

From:

egovoru.livejournal.com

"Юм боролся с идеей "я" как именно с продолжением идеи души, что в человеке есть нечто постоянное"

Юм считает, что мы предрасположены считать единым объектом последовательность сменяющих друг друга во времени похожих объектов, и что именно это когнитивное искажение лежит в основе нашей концепции души, "я" и субстанции:

"We have a distinct idea of an object, that remains invariable and uninterrupted thro' a suppos'd variation of time; and this idea we call that of identity or sameness. We have also a distinct idea of several different objects existing in succession, and connected together by a close relation; and this to an accurate view affords as perfect a notion of diversity, as if there was no manner of relation among the objects. But tho' these two ideas of identity, and a succession of related objects be in themselves perfectly distinct, and even contrary, yet 'tis certain, that in our common way of thinking they are generally confounded with each other. That action of the imagination, by which we consider the uninterrupted and invariable object, and that by which we reflect on the succession of related objects, are almost the same to the feeling, nor is there much more effort of thought requir'd in the latter case than in the former. The relation facilitates the transition of the mind from one object to another, and renders its passage as smooth as if it contemplated one continu'd object.

This resemblance is the cause of the confusion and mistake, and makes us substitute the notion of identity, instead of that of related objects. However at one instant we may consider the related succession as variable or interrupted, we are sure the next to ascribe to it a perfect identity, and regard it as invariable and uninterrupted. Our propensity to this mistake is so great from the resemblance above-mention'd, that we fall into it before we are aware; and tho' we incessantly correct ourselves by reflection, and return to a more accurate method of thinking, yet we cannot long sustain our philosophy, or take off this biass from the imagination. Our last resource is to yield to it, and boldly assert that these different related objects are in effect the same, however interrupted and variable. In order to justify to ourselves this absurdity, we often feign some new and unintelligible principle, that connects the objects together, and prevents their interruption or variation. Thus we feign the continu'd existence of the perceptions of our senses, to remove the interruption; and run into the notion of a soul, and self, and substance, to disguise the variation. But we may farther observe, that where we do not give rise to such a fiction, our propension to confound identity with relation is so great, that we are apt to imagine[50] something unknown and mysterious, connecting the parts, beside their relation; and this I take to be the case with regard to the identity we ascribe to plants and vegetables. And even when this does not take place, we still feel a propensity to confound these ideas, tho' we are not able fully to satisfy ourselves in that particular, nor find any thing invariable and uninterrupted to justify our notion of identity".

From:

Ах, было б только с кем поговорить!..

Я, я, я! Что за дикое слово!

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags