Posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 0:58:26
In reply to Re: Is there another part to that? » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 0:50:07
> Ah, when you move from logic to metaphysics, I think my brain reaches its limits. :)
Thats ok. When you move from logic to math, my brain reaches mine :-)
> I think for my own purposes I'll stick with the dummies guide to the self.Sigh.
I am not very clear. Dennett writes much better than me.> But that doesn't account for the disavowal of what is actually part of me but that I don't wish to claim. That's where I always get stuck.
You and many philosophers before you.
> In my very humble opinion, because this is a difficult thing to grasp, role playing ought to be thrown out as a genuine part of the definition of a self. But disavowal is an almost insurmountable hurdle to overcome. Because how can you ever really know for sure? No matter what? So alters *could* be mutually disavowed fragments of the self. How could you ever prove they weren't?How could you ever prove they were??
Don't give up.
Please.I think the next bit might be a bit easier...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:476326
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050315/msgs/476561.html