A lot of that comes down to how you define the “self”.
Most of the time, when people speak of themselves in the first person, they seem to be referring to the reflective observer, the audience of the internal narrative, Hofstadter’s strange loops, whatever you want to call it.
To what extent that observer is just along for the ride and subject to the whims of an arational but clever ape that calls the shots I don’t know, but a lot of confusion arises from fuzzy use of the first person.
a lot of confusion arises from fuzzy use of the first person.
Indeed. Like many paradoxes, the whole problem of akrasia (both the philosophical side and the personal-life side) may very well boil down to the subtle assumptions invoked by the very use of the category “self”.
A lot of that comes down to how you define the “self”.
Most of the time, when people speak of themselves in the first person, they seem to be referring to the reflective observer, the audience of the internal narrative, Hofstadter’s strange loops, whatever you want to call it.
To what extent that observer is just along for the ride and subject to the whims of an arational but clever ape that calls the shots I don’t know, but a lot of confusion arises from fuzzy use of the first person.
Indeed. Like many paradoxes, the whole problem of akrasia (both the philosophical side and the personal-life side) may very well boil down to the subtle assumptions invoked by the very use of the category “self”.