/lit/ - Literature

>>16356584
Being conscious is like having a dick and using it to fuck, while being self conscious is like performing autofellatio. There, hope that cleared it up.

>>16356584
>Plato
>Not Jowett

>>16356584
Read the gita.

>>16356584
read Shankara he explains all this pretty clearly

Why can't the self observe itself

>>16356793
Because it's stuck with memories = pain, longing, hatred, fear, love, and everything else that builds up the self we know and question.

>>16356750
Wew just looked into him and he advances something like the cogito? Pretty interesting. I had avoided due to Guenon poster's insane obnoxiousness

nothing to be done. there's still a level of self-consciousness possible that you will never attain, so why quibble over something beyond even that?


i feel like introspection is less a mind-breaking thing and actually just a normal mechanic of the brain/mind that we construct a metaself and we're never actually self-conscious in any real sense.

>>16356584
I think the answer to this is that the actual consciousness is totally bereft of content, the act of seeing is a pure nothing in itself. Im not phrasing this very well but you get what i mean im sure, it's a common idea.

>>16356584
Read Deleuze

>>16356584
Welcome to existentiality and Kiekegaard-- just know these things can be getten around temporarily when not taking up the question itself straightaway.

>>16357652
>we're never self-conscious in a real sense
Oh please anon, all basic fact disagrees-- and of high intellectual virtue too. Don Quixote agrees with me as well.

>>16357662
Some people have compared it to a transparency, you can't "see yourself see" and so on, though I guess you sorta can in the mind... hypothetica.

>>16357140
Yes it is pretty interesting. Pic related is a brief summary of Shankara's explanation of the nature of consciousness, which was copied and pasted in a thread from a book on Indian philosophy. Out of all eastern philosophy, much of which I also enjoy, Shankara does a particularly good job of describing consciousness, and it can be very interesting to read his prose commentaries where he explores this subject at length.

>>16357820
This is gibberish akin to what a new age mindset blogger would push out of their anus.

>>16357835
It comes from an encyclopedia of indian philosophy written by S. Dasgupta who was an appointed lecturer at Cambridge. I think some of the conclusions in the book are wrong, but it is definitely not gibberish, maybe you should go back to reading something more your speed like A Song of Fire and Ice

Kant already solved this with his speration of inner sense from the transcendental unity of apperception. The former is the empirical self and the latter is the transcendental self. The empirical self is analogous to the Hume's bundle of impressions. The transcendental self is the I think that must accompany all representations. Introspection is nothing but the transcendental self "observing" the empirical self. The transcendental self can never be intuited, but it is a precondition for experience to be possible.

>>16356625
>Plato
>Not Thomas Taylor

>>16357868
asoiaf unironically has more literary merit than the pali canon

>>16356584
>>16356750
>>16357140
The thought ‘who am I?’ will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre, it will itself be burnt up in the end. Then, there will be Self-realization.

Not letting the mind go out, but retaining it in the Heart is what is called “inwardness”. Letting the mind go out of the Heart is known as “externalisation”. Thus, when the mind stays in the Heart, the ‘I’ which is the source of all thoughts will go, and the Self which ever exists will shine.

Fucking Hindus get out of my thread. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

>>16356584
Read Derrida

>>16357774
you + container simulating an idea of you
(you doing) introspection -> container

>>16356584
>the Self that is being observed would not be the same as the Self that is doing the observing

What makes you think so?

>>16356584
It is very simple, if you are concious of another you are not concious of their conciousness, you are concious of a mentally constructed persona of that other person in your mind
if you are self-concious your are not concious of your conciousness but concious of a mentally constructed persona of yourself in your mind
also your conciousness doesn't do the thinking, it just thinks it does

>>16357652
>i feel like introspection is less a mind-breaking thing and actually just a normal mechanic of the brain/mind that we construct a metaself and we're never actually self-conscious in any real sense.
should have been /thread

You faggots need to take the Zapffe pill and pull your head out your ass
>https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/The_Last_Messiah

>>16358702
He explained why

>>16357915
Then how did Kant get to know about the transcendental self? Didn't he intuit it?

>>16358754
For Kant, the transcendental self or the I think is merely formal and empty, but it has to be presupposed to account for the unity of experience. The actual self is noumenal for him.

>>16356584
how about you shut the fuck up for a second and just observe these observations that you are having it is difficult to shut the fuck up i get it but you have to see that you are talking loudly and it is confusing only yourself. shut the fuck up for a second pal