Empirical Phenomenon

The substantival phrase 'the self' is very unnatural in most speech contexts, and because of this some conclude from this that it's an illusion to think that there is such a thing as the self, an illusion that arises from nothing more than an improper use of language (Parameterchild 2011). The idea that there is a not unified individual will be discussed in this essay and furthermore argue that the idea of the self is possibly a misconception and are simply two words that are put together and don't really mean anything but an eclectic bandwagon of confused delusions. Plus the belief that as human beings most of us at any rate are not completely free to think out, at least some of the time, what we want to do, and then free, some of the time at least, to do it but defined by social norms and conventions. As behavioural psychology already employs the idea that our situation and history greatly influences our choices and ability to cope and adapt, so the arguments are mostly controversial to begin with.

The first and most foremost proof that there is no such thing are a unified self is science and not the science with white laboratory coats, the science of us all. This science in the thinking and practice of a few people in the 17th Century or at least, that was when modern science took shape as a fundamentally influential system of thought. But since then this system of thought has been so influential we are all thought to be in some way, scientists now. The universe is thus not viewed as a story or a picture but as some kind of apparatus. When something within our physical surroundings happens, we focus as a matter of impulsive response on what brought it about (University 2011). A good example of this is the floods that happened within the country this year. People were left wondering as to why this had happened, if it was going to happen again and what could be done next time in order to prevent innocent lives being lost. We are all scientists in the sense that we assume whatever happens to be have been brought about by causes not by God or ask what message it is that God is trying to send us, and we are all scientists in the sense that our focus of attention is on causation when we show interest in the physical world we think of ourselves as inhabiting.

Furthermore to answer such a question, like Heidegger said, is to miss something basic (Heidegger 2007). For 'The Self' to actually be a realistic idea, it demands the absolute, but existence does not bend to absolutes. You are never completely autonomous, you always act according to your surroundings and to the people around you, to the 'live' you are currently living, to the problem you are currently having. You might say you are making choices, that you can always make choices, even if it is only a perceptual choice in your own head. So the question is can we make completely autonomous choices independent of all influence. For instance, a chess game is played by two and you are not the sole denizen of the world. Furthermore, we are all interconnected through love, hate, consequences, and a lot of random things. So the idea of Unified Self becomes nonsense as the definition of the word 'Unified' implies an absolute and as stated before, nothing in this world is absolute.

Additionally, Hume says, in his straightforward fashion, that there can be no persistent identity for us (Hume 1997). We speak of "the oak tree" in the backyard, but, in fact, each time we see it, "the oak tree" is different. It may have a different number of leaves, and certainly it has changed in some ways, even when we cannot discern these changes. Any change in a thing changes its identity. Your mind or brain has different ideas. Your body has different cells. As Heraclitus noted, "We cannot step twice into the same river, for the water into which we first stepped has flowed on." In other words, identity is not a property of things, but a mental act. Our minds confer identity on things; we do not perceive it. A self is merely a habitual way of discussing certain perceptions. So in conclusion, Science is showing us, in so many ways, that despite the seeming general appeal for everyone to act in certain ways, or to strive toward some cultural norm, that diversity abounds due to factors beyond the control of the individual. One would think this would encourage us to become more tolerant of the differences between us. Maybe that will come with time. Meanwhile, our behaviours, moods, desires and characteristics are being constantly modified by our own available supply (too much or too little) of brain chemicals and hormones, by areas of abundant connectivity, an absence or an excess of brain tissue in specific areas.

Evidence of this can be since in a ground-breaking experiment performed in 1970, Benjamin Libet was able to prove that we make a decision before we are consciously even aware of the fact that we have. Subjects were asked to move their hand while simultaneously noting the time at which they made the decision to move it. Libet found that 500 milliseconds before consciously making the decision to move their hand, the brain was already undergoing the necessary patterns