Quote:
Originally posted by Nina
if there is no "real self" then we can define ourselves however we want.
|
I'm not so sure about that one. While our definition may not be objective or absolute, it could be a rough estimate, in which case one definition could be better than the other.
It's a bit like Popper's evolutionary theory of knowledge: we create a theory (or definition), see how well it works, if it proves not to be correct we change it, but all the while there is progress and we come closer to the truth with each new and improved theory (even though we will never know what the 'truth' is, or even if it exists or not).
Similarly, the definitions of oneself can not be compared to any 'real self', but they can be compared to eachother, and the one that works best and seems most accurate is accepted, until it is proven not to be correct or is replaced by an even more comprehensive definition.
Ofcourse, seeing how humans are dynamic, the definition also has to be a dynamic one, so it will have to include conditions and be able to develop itself.