SOCRATES

Socrates’ most famous statement: “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology).  Examining one’s self is the most important
task one can undertake, for it alone will give us the knowledge necessary to answer the question ‘how should I live my life’. As
Socrates explained: “…once we know ourselves, we may learn how to care for ourselves, but otherwise we never shall.” (First
Alcibiades)

In search of self knowledge =Socrates thought we would soon discover our true nature.

One’s true self, according to Socrates, is not to be identified with what we own, with our social status, our reputation, or even with our
body. Instead, Socrates famously maintained that our true self is our soul (the thinking and willing subject by the famous historian of
philosophy Frederick Copelston)

According to Socrates it is the state of our soul, or our inner being, which determines the quality of our life. Thus it is paramount that
we devote considerable amounts of our attention, energy, and resources to making our soul as good and beautiful as possible. Or as he
pronounces in Plato’s dialogue the Apology: “I shall never give up philosophy or stop exhorting you and pointing out the truth to any
one of you whom I meet, saying in my most accustomed way: “Most excellent man, are you…not ashamed to care for the acquisition
of wealth and for reputation and honor, when you neither care nor take thought for wisdom and truth and the perfection of your
soul?” (Apology 29d)

After coming to the realization that one’s inner self, or soul, is all important, Socrates believed the next step in the path towards self
knowledge was to obtain knowledge of what is good and what is evil, and in the process use what one learns to cultivate the good
within one’s soul and purge the evil from it.

Most people dogmatically assume they know what is truly good and what is truly evil. They regard things such as wealth, status,
pleasure, and social acceptance as the greatest of all goods in life, and think that poverty, death, pain, and social rejection are the
greatest of all evils.

However, Socrates disagreed with these answers, and also believed this view to be extremely harmful. All human beings naturally
strive after happiness, thought Socrates, for happiness is the final end in life and everything we do we do because we think it will
make us happy. We therefore label what we think will bring us happiness as ‘good’, and those things we think will bring us suffering
and pain as ‘evil’. So it follows that if we have a mistaken conception of what is good, then we will spend our lives frantically chasing
after things that will not bring us happiness even if we attain them.

He believed that our true self is our soul, not the things we typically associate with making a person who they are (status,
material belongings, physical appearance).
Plato

To begin with, the soul (self or psyche), according to Plato, is a metaphysical principle (‘origin of all moving things’), and as such, it
is unreachable by the ordinary mind. ‘The Self-mover is the first principle of motion, and this can neither be destroyed nor begotten,
else the whole heavens and all creation would collapse’ (Phaedrus 245c -246a). It would be akin to Aristotle’s unmoved mover except
that the soul is in perpetual movement. It is a ‘universal cause’ which ‘controls all things that move anywhere… [including] heaven
itself’ (Laws, X, 896 d-e). Since the soul is immortal ‘there is no release or salvation from evil except the attainment of the highest
virtue and wisdom’ (Phaedo 107c-108c)

Curiously, however, there are noble and also ignoble souls. ‘When perfect and fully winged it soars upwards and orders the whole
world’... ‘In its revolution, the soul beholds justice, temperance, and knowledge absolute… ’. (Phaedrus, 247c-e). Due to the principle
of change in them, souls can ascend, ‘in communion with divine nature and become divine’ (Phaedrus 249b) [this is called
metempsychosis or transmigration].

Since other responders have made a correlation or analogy between the Platonic soul (psyche or self) and the Self of Advaita Vedanta,
the following are my own comments: 1) Soul or self (lowercase) would be at most the purported individual self/jiva as seen from the
ignorant (avidya) point of view, and also known as ‘reflected Consciousness’ (abhasa). We cannot here bring to bear the absolute or
transcendental dimension as from AV (paramarthika) in the case of the Platonic soul since this soul can become divine but is not so
by nature, given that it is transmigrant, ever in movement - whereas the Advaitic jiva is in reality, or in essence, the Self Itself.

Secondly, only the supreme Form or Idea, the Good, has the unique nature of being transcendental (indescribable, unknowable by the
mind, etc.), not so the soul or self of Platonic philosophy. In this sense, the Advaitic Self has this unique distinction of absoluteness,
etc. Only very loosely could one assimilate the Platonic ‘Good’ with the Advaitic Self (Atman or Atman-Brahman). Is this justifiable?
Indeed a case can be made for the non-dual character of the philosophy of Plato (as per some of my answers in Quora).

Self’ (auto) is for Plato pure unsensible and uncognizable selfhood, which is the source of anything this-and-here (tode ti), while
everything else is a representational (poios) object of the self, i.e. self-consciousness instead of mere self. For example, the
cognizable pure self of self-consciousness as an idea of “the one (to hen)” is one step away from it. It’s like the sun, which lets
everything else be seen in it’s light. However, since this self is totally uncommunicable, like an eye can’t directly see itself, but only
through a representation e.g. in a mirror, Plato didn’t include it into any of his dialogues and merely alludes to it in his 7. letter.
Plato’s philosophy doesn’t include a ‘self’ at all, as it’s supposed to be “in itself”, since for him philosophy is always somewhat
representational, i.e. it’s pointless to speak about something, which can’t be pointed out at all. The self meant, i.e. the most direct
communicable and cognizable object of self is “the one”, but self in itself doesn’t have a meaning, since it’s not an object of any
concept meaning something — according to Plato, that is.
ST. AUGUSTINE

I’m not sure that he ever actually took a word that we translate into English as “self” and defined it in the straightforward way you
would find in a dictionary, but his works contain many discussions relevant to the question.

Augustine believed that humans were made in the image and likeness of God and that our rational minds were the image of the Holy
Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

He thought that everything in the material world has its place in the natural order of things, and acts in accordance with its nature:

“If we were stones, or waves, or wind, or flame, or anything of that kind, we should want, indeed, both sensation and life, yet should
possess a kind of attraction towards our own proper position and natural order. For the specific gravity of bodies is, as it were, their
love, whether they are carried downwards by their weight, or upwards by their levity. For the body is borne by its gravity, as the spirit
by love, wherever it is borne.” (City of God, XI:28)

Unlike inanimate things, animals perceive and react to the sensible world, but they still have no knowledge or desires not tied to their
senses:

“For if we were beasts, we should love the fleshly and sensual life, and this would be our sufficient good; and when it was well with
us in respect of it, we should seek nothing beyond.” (City of God, XI:28).

But humans have an inner knowledge that animals lack:

“However, both these and all material things have their causes hidden in their nature; but their outward forms, which lend beauty to
this visible structure of the world, are perceived by our senses, so that they seem to wish to compensate for their own want of
knowledge by providing us with knowledge. But we perceive them by our bodily senses in such a way that we do not judge of them by
these senses. For we have another and far superior sense, belonging to the inner man, by which we perceive what things are just, and
what unjust — just by means of an intelligible idea, unjust by the want of it. This sense is aided in its functions neither by the eyesight,
nor by the orifice of the ear, nor by the air-holes of the nostrils, nor by the palate's taste, nor by any bodily touch. By it I am assured
both that I am, and that I know this; and these two I love, and in the same manner I am assured that I love them.” (City of God, XI:27)

So he believed that we have a higher sense that, because it is beyond the bodily senses, can pass judgement on them in a way
impossible to animals because we have an immaterial mind, and he believed that that mind is aware of itself, and it recognizes that its
own existence and knowledge is good. By thinking, and being award of its thoughts, and loving its existence and activity, the human
mind mirrors the three functions of the persons of the Christian Trinity, the Father, the Son who is the Word/Thought of the Father,
and the Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and the Son.

“And we indeed recognize in ourselves the image of God, that is, of the supreme Trinity, an image which, though it be not equal to
God, or rather, though it be very far removed from Him — being neither co-eternal, nor, to say all in a word, consubstantial with Him
— is yet nearer to Him in nature than any other of His works, and is destined to be yet restored, that it may bear a still closer
resemblance. For we both are, and know that we are, and delight in our being, and our knowledge of it.” (City of God, XI:26)

This is Augustine’s understanding of what it means to be a rational being with self-knowledge, so I would think that his idea of the
image of the Trinity in man is the best candidate for his definition of “self.”

Augustine's sense of self is his relation to God, both in his recognition of God's love and his response to it—achieved through self-
presentation, then self-realization. Augustine believed one could not achieve inner peace without finding God's love.
RENE DESCARTES

For Descartes, then, this is the essence of your self—you are a “thinking thing,” a dynamic identity that engages in all of those
mental operations we associate with being a human self. For example:

You understand situations in which you find yourself.

You doubt the accuracy of ideas presented to you.

You affirm the truth of a statement made about you.

You deny an accusation that someone has made.

You will yourself to complete a task you have begun.

You refuse to follow a command that you consider to be unethical.

You imagine a fulfilling career for yourself.

You feel passionate emotions toward another person.

But in addition to engaging in all of these mental operations—and many other besides—your self-identity is dependent on the
fact that you are capable of being aware you are engaging in these mental operations while you are engaged in them. If you were
consistently not conscious of your mental operations, consistently unaware of your thinking, reasoning, and perceiving processes,
then it would not be possible for you to have a self-identity, a unique essence, a you.

JOHN LOCKE

John Locke speaks of personal identity and survival of consciousness after death. A criterion of personal identity through time is
given. Such a criterion specifies, insofar as that is possible, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the survival of persons. John
Locke holds that personal identity is a matter of psychological continuity. He considered personal identity (or the self) to be founded
on consciousness (viz. memory), and not on the substance of either the soul or the body.

“Self is that conscious thinking thing, which is sensible, or conscious of Pleasure and Pain, Capable of Happiness or Misery, and so is
concerned for it self, as far as that consciousness extends” (Locke 1975, 341). Consciousness joins the body and the soul and forms
the person.

To Locke, consciousness is identity. The continuity of identity is memory. And a chain of memory or recall creates a lasting SELF.

I may not remember anything that I felt or thought when I was five, but I now remember things I felt or thought when I was 40. And
then I remembered things I felt and thought when I was 30. And so on backwards. When I was six I remembered things I felt or
thought when I had been five.

So memory secures identity and a continuous chain of this sort persuades most of its that we have been one self over many decades.

If the chain were to be broken, as in what psychologists call a fugue state, then identity fails, even if the body is the same.
DAVID HUME

Hume in his theory has put forward the premise of understanding the ‘impression’ and ‘identity’ we have of ourselves before we dwell
into the questions of ‘the self’. According to Hume, as human beings we tend to think of ourselves as selves—who are stable entities
that exist over time but no matter how closely we examine our own experiences, we never observe anything beyond a series of
transient feelings, sensations, and impressions.

Hume mention’s that we cannot observe ourselves, or what we are, in a unified manner. There is no holistic impression of the “self”
that ties our individual impressions together which goes on to explain that we are never directly aware of ourselves but only of what
we are experiencing at a particular moment. He explains that even though the relations between our ideas, feelings and so on and so
forth can be traced through time by memory, there is no real evidence of any core that connects them in pure totality.

In this light, David Hume suggests that the self is just a bundle of perceptions, like links in a chain. To look for a unifying self beyond
those perceptions is like looking for a chain apart from the links that constitute it. Hume argues that our concept of the self is a result
of our natural habit of attributing unified existence to any collection of associated parts. This belief is natural, but there is no logical
support for it.The concept of self is however a highly contested topic and in my opinion there are numerous unresolved problems in
Hume’s philosophy of ‘the self’.

IMMANUEL KANT
According to him, we all have an inner and an outer self which together form our consciousness. The inner self is comprised of our
psychological state and our rational intellect. The outer self includes our sense and the physical world. When speaking of the inner
self, there is apperception.

Kant perspective on self was primitive. The process character of recognition, the unavoidable historicity of language, the problem of
authority, the necessity to base decisions on uncomplete knowledge, our animalic nature are absent yet all of these are important
aspect of the self.

However this primitivity is by design. In the foreword to his Critique, Kant defines his task precisely to disentangle the ‘nauseating
mixture’ of logical, psychological truth and religious tradition that was taught at his time following Aristotle and Thomas of Aquino.
This is gone for good, indeed.
A true Kantian would recommend to simply insert empirical truths into the frame provided in order to arrive at a realistic concept of
self as he has done himself in his post-critical writings which however no one ever reads.

SIGMUND FREUD
Sigmund Freud believed that to have a strong sense of self (or ego), the id and the superego have to be in harmony. In other words,
your desires and social obligations should coincide.

Sigmund Freud believed that if you have a strong sense of self (ego), you’re capable of understanding your own needs and also
intuiting the limits that society puts on you. If you have a strong sense of self, you can move freely through life. You won’t have any
problem recognizing your internal repression and you’ll be satisfied and fulfilled in your day-to-day life.

We should start by saying that many of the foundational psychoanalytic ideas aren’t valid anymore. Concepts like penis envy or
feminine hysteria are obsolete. Nevertheless, psychoanalysis has managed to stay relevant by embracing new ideas and adapting
to modern times.

GILBERT RYLE
Arguing that the mind does not exist and therefore can't be the seat of self, Ryle believed that self comes from behavior. We're all just
a bundle of behaviors caused by the physical workings of the body.

Took a quick look-see on the web. Gilbert Ryle’s argument against the theory that, the mind does not exist and therefore can't be the
seat of self. Ryle believed that self comes from behavior. We're all just a bundle of behaviors caused by the physical workings of the
body.

According to me: he is right.

Experience creates perspective, as the evidence is stored through memories. It is this perspective that creates your reality. The
conscious mind is the gatekeeper of all information, storing and releasing it accordingly. Self is the manifestation of compiled
experiences.
PAUL CHURCHLAND

Dualism

So here's a question. Why do people say 'read my mind' instead of 'read my brain'? Along the same lines, why is it 'brain surgery'
instead of 'mind surgery'?

Interestingly, we can find an answer in today's lesson as we explore the works of Paul Churchland, specifically his theories on self and
the brain. Since Churchland is a modern-day philosopher who studies the brain, let's first take a look at some older philosophical
theories on the subject.

For much of history, many western philosophers have held to the theory of dualism. When it comes to discussing human life, dualism
is the idea that the mind and the body are separate.

In other words, we all have a physical brain, but we also have a separate mind. Adding to this distinction, dualists have historically
asserted the mind is the seat of our consciousness. On the contrary, the brain is really just an organ similar to the heart or lungs.

Because the mind is the seat of our consciousness, it's what gives us our identity. No, we can't see it, taste it, or touch it, but it does
exist. Not only does it exist, but it is what makes self, self.

Merleau-Ponty

believed the physical body to be an important part of what makes up the subjective self. This concept stands in contradiction to
rationalism and empiricism. ... This work asserts that self and perception are encompassed in a physical body. The physical body is
part of self.

Before diving into our lesson on Maurice Merleau-Ponty and his ideas on self as an embodied subjectivity, we're going to need to
explain what we mean by 'subjectivity.' We're also going to need to understand rationalism and empiricism. With so much to cover,
today's lesson will definitely be a bit of a shallow dive into a very deep pool.

To jump in, let's define what we mean by subjectivity, or subject. For our purposes, we'll think of a subject as something that has
being. A subject is a real thing that can take real action and cause real effects. In short, it exists. Keeping this in mind, Maurice
Merleau-Ponty believed the physical body to be an important part of what makes up the subjective self.

This idea flew in the face of two of the most heralded, yet opposing, ideas in all of philosophy. They are empiricism and rationalism.
In order to understand why Merleau-Ponty's ideas made such a splash, we need to understand the two philosophies against which he
was arguing.

Rationalism

When speaking of self or being, rationalism asserts that reason and mental perception, rather than physical senses and experience, are
the basis of knowledge and self. In other words, our rational thinking minds are where it's all at!

According to many who held this belief, the mind is the seat of our consciousness. It is the subject behind what it means to be human.
The body is just a shell. As the famous Plato once said, and I paraphrase a bit, 'The body is just the prison house of the soul.'

Empiricism

Standing in contrast to rationalism is empiricism. Empiricism is the belief that our physical senses are the only source of knowledge.
If the source of our knowledge can't be seen, touched, heard, tasted, etc., it really can't be trusted. Or, in other words, if it can't be
empirically studied, it's a no go. Under these parameters, the idea of some mystical mind independently perceiving and giving us our
sense of self comes under some serious scrutiny. An empiricist may argue that our physical body, and not some mystical mind, makes
up our sense of self. While the rationalist would say, 'I think, therefore I am', an empiricist would say, 'I sense, therefore I am!'