Write here.
I know that the self is
dependent to our
consciousness, and
without consciousness, I
think we can never
understand our own self.
Since our self is linked to
our conscious mind, I can
say that somehow, we
can possibly construct a
fictional self.
Write here.
I know that I have body
and a mind/soul that
makes up the whole self
of mine. I have also
consciousness that
makes me aware of
everything around me
and myself. So, I can say
that I have a self that
existed in me.
Write here.
I want to know more on
the idea that the self is
just fictional, and how this
idea was derived and why
do others believe on this
concept.
Write here.
I want to know how can
a self be believed to "
not exist" and why other
people tend to believe
on this idea.
Write here. Write here.
I can learn more by I have learned that Humans,
reading and studying according to Hume, utilize
their imaginations to create a
through this lesson fictional self in order to believe
and by understanding in the existence of a unified
the perspectives of and continuous self/soul. For
David Humes about him, this fictional self is not
the self. real, and it is a made-up entity
generated from a series of
fleeting states and
occurrences.
Write here. Write here.
According to Hume, who was
I can learn more by influenced by empiricist
inspecting on my own principles, we can find that there
self and analyzing if is no such thing as "self" if we
thoroughly study our sensory
there is really a "self" experience through the process
that exist in me. of introspection. This is
because, in his opinion, this is
the only conclusion that is
consistent with an honest and
fair analysis of our experience,
which has only two entities:
impressions (basic sensations)
and ideas (copies of
impression), and this concept of
him is what I disagree.
 Write here.
David Locke- believed in
empiricist principle
- "There is no self"!

Write here.
Hume, influenced by empiricist
principle, believes that if we carefully
examine our sense experience through
the process of introspection, we
discover that there is no such thing as "
self". This is because for him this belief
is the only possible conclusion
consistent with an honest and objective
examination of our experience, in which
this experience have only two entities;
impressions (basic sensation) and
ideas (copies of impression).
 *Basic Sensations of our experience
*pain, pleasure, heat, cold, happiness, grief, fear, *copies of impression
exhilaration, etc *less lively and vivid
*lively and vivid *once removed from reality

Write here.
Hume-data of our experience form
a fleeting stream of sensation in our
mind, and sensation of constant
self doesn't exist.

Write here.
I started my investigation from a 7- year old Christian. In those moments, I am already happy with simple things anyone could give me, like
toys and clothes. I was so enjoyed playing with my cousins every afternoon on the farm, without wondering what others would say to me.
Then going to a 13 year old Christian, a teenager and high school student Christian. These were the times where I was slap by the reality of
life. This where the times that I started to look down at my life, to the point I was so ashamed of my poor life. Also, in this stage of my life I
learned to fall in love and start admiring someone. In this time, I felt the roller coaster emotions in my life. Then to a 17 year old Christian, the
Senior High School Christian. Here, I became so serious and somehow melancholic about life. I tend to realize some more serious reality of
life, and this made me become more matured. In this phase, I became a "sadboy" Christian where I experience depression and anxiety. Here,
I experienced losing friends and I undergo so many changes in my life. and lastly, the 20 year old Christian, or the College Christian. In
college, I changed my name to "Ian" as one of my ways to renew my self. I became more mature in handling my emotions, and I totally
immune my self in any changes in my life. Throughout my life, I experience different sensations, perceptions, and believed different ideas as
Hume describe. But along the changing process, I realized that I never see my self, the real me, the "real IAN", because I think the "real IAN"
is still the Christian 13 years ago, just undergoes changes in his environment.
 Write here. I think YES, because your
experience can also affects your
own ideas and perceptions in life.

Write here.

Hume- Our experiences are perceptions

- Death is FINAL.

Write here.
For Hume, all of our experiences,
which is related to the self, are
perceptions, and when we are not
experiencing our perceptions as when
we sleep, there is no reason to believe
that our self still exist in any form.
Likewise, when our body dies and
these sensations stop, it makes no
sense to believe that our self continues
to exist in some form. This made
I tend to disagree to Hume, because I strongly believe that death is not
Hume believe that DEATH is FINAL
which means that our death is the final
Write here.the final stage for our self to exist. I still believe in the perception of St.
Augustine and Plato that self still exist after we die, that the self is
destination of our self and it no longer more than just a body, and as an immaterial being, it can not be
exist after we die. decompose or perish like material being, and it can continue to exist
after death.
 Write here.
Somehow, Hume is right
about self as a perception,
but I think it is his idea that
he really believed, and I can
not say that he is right and I
am wrong, and vise versa.

Write here.
Hume- Self is a bundle/collection of different
perceptions
- Fictional self is not real

Write here.
According to Hume, humans use their
imaginations to construct a fictional self for
their desperation of believing that they have a
unified and continuous self/soul. This fictional
self is not real, and it is an imaginary creature
which is derived from a succession of
impermanent states and events.

Write here.
I believe NO. Let's say we have that tendency to create fictional self, but the
self is not just a perception that somehow far from reality. Self is indeed a
real thing, which connects to every actual and material being around it. So, if
we just created a fictional self, that means we also living in a fictional world? I
don't think so, because through our own senses, we can say that the self is
real.
 Hume- Fictional Self
Write here. Buddhist- Illusion Self

Write here. Write here. Write here.

-unified bundle of thoughts,
feelings, and sensations -every aspect of life is
-no constant impermanent
-creating fictional self to
self exist over a -all elements of the
unify mental events and
period of time universe are in a process
introduce order into our
lives of change and transition
 Buddhist Doctrine- self as a flame
- composed of five aggregates; physical form, sensation,
conceptualization, disposition to act, consciousness

Write here.
For Buddhist Doctrine, the self is described as a flame that
is continually passed from candle to candle, in which the
self is composed of five aggregates (physical form,
sensation, conceptualization, disposition to act,
consciousness) which dynamically interact in a continuous
progression. But along this ongoing process of transition,
there is no such substance/ identity that persist over time,
which contradicts to the perception of Western Philosophy
that has a more Platonic view of the self.
 King Menander- ask Nagasena if where is his identity
Write here. Nagasena- no individual in his name
- describes the self as a chariot
 King Menander asked Nagasena why he believed that his name, Nagasena, doesn't really exist, but only a designation of himself. For
Write here.Menander, if Nagasena has no personal identity through his name, or on his body parts or perceptions, then why he told him that he was
Nagasena? Menander's argument can be theoretically amenable because how come you introduce yourself by telling your name and
disagreeing that in your name is yourself? Then Nagasena reverse the questioning through comparing the self to a chariot, that like the chariot
that exists for its parts, the human self also exists because of his body, perception, etc., but no self is found, but only a designation. I can say
that Nagasena’s simile is agreeable also since our own name is just a designation of us, and can not really determine who are we as a person.
In my own situation, I use “Ian” as my new name in college, but that doesn’t mean that “Ian” determines my own self, my true self. Because the
self is a complex being and it is more than just a name. My body, perception, etc. makes “Ian” exist as denotation, and even my name changes,
I can still be the same “Christian” over time.

Write here. Write here.

Plato describes the self as
a winged chariot (reason)
Write here. Nagasena describes the self as
to denoting a chariot. As the
drawn by two powerful
Both of them chariot that exists for its parts,
horses; white (spirit) and
use chariot as the human self also exists
black (appetite). He
an analogy for because of his body,
believed that to understand
understanding perception, etc., but no self is
better our self, make sure
the self. found, but only a designation.
that the reason (chariot) is
in control of both spirit and
appetite (winged horses).
Write here.