|
|
Post by Jason Parris on Sept 25, 2013 14:09:55 GMT
 Okay gang, here we go: Does my nephew, Luke Parris Page, age three days, have a self? Remember that the best responses are always balanced, insightful, and supported with relevant detail from both the text and the world. Enlighten us. |
|
|
|
Post by moreno on Sept 25, 2013 17:22:25 GMT
I'd like to start off my saying congratulations! He's adorable.
This is a hard question to answer because at such a young age we do not remember what we were thinking or how we were. We have to rely on old pictures and the memories that others have of us. In that case, it is easier to argue that Luke does not yet have a self. However, as I think about myself at 3 days old and what my parents have told me about baby Morgan, I realize that Luke does in fact have a self. My parents told me that I rarely cried as a baby, whereas my sister Emily was very colicky and didn't like to be put down. If we didn't have selves, we would all be the same. We all would have cried the same amount, liked the same teething toys and spit up the same food. As this is not the case, each person, however young and dependable, has a self. Luke may not understand who he is yet...he probably cries at inconvenient times and is hungry in the middle of the night, but I'd like to believe he is aware even at 3 days old. Most novels do not have characters that young, but one can assume that Siddhartha was observant of his surroundings right away. Babies may not be able to express things, but that doesn't mean they aren't aware. Though as a result of their lack of communication, we may never know.
It is difficult to come to a confident conclusion because we cannot ask a 3-day old child whether or not they have a self. Nor are there developed 3-day old characters in the books we read. Nonetheless, I believe we have a self from the very beginning and as we grow up that self becomes more clear. There would be no self to develop if we did not have one from the beginning.
|
|
shanejohnson
New Member
"Kindness is the only investment that never fails." - Thoreau
Posts: 15 
|
Post by shanejohnson on Sept 25, 2013 19:42:46 GMT
I would assert that yes, little Luke does have a self. However, I would like to pose the idea that Luke's self is a more fundamental level of self than the idea of self us older beings apply to ourselves. Luke does not define himself with personality traits. Nor does he have any meaningful experience to claim he has been shaped by. (Not to say that couldn't stop him from writing a college essay.) He is likely not even aware of his own "self". But I contend that he still has a basic 'self' regardless of his youthful age. I understand a possible opposing argument could be interpreted from some of Siddhartha. On page 47, Hesse writes, "The body was certainly not the Self, nor the play of senses, nor thought, nor understanding, nor acquired wisdom or art with which to draw conclusions and from already existing thoughts to spin new thoughts." This sentiment is similarly reflected on page 6, and both seem to very strongly state that neither basic thought nor consciousness are the innermost Self. Thus, an argument could be presented to state that Luke has only his physical being and his consciousness of being alive, and as Siddhartha states that neither of these constitute Self, Luke therefore has no self yet. However, I instead intend to use the evidence from Siddhartha above in my favor. Luke has no wisdom, and likely very little understanding, which are more developed abilities. If Self was defined as one of these functions, Luke would likely not have it in the same way we do. Further, the body, the play of senses (47) and general consciousness (6) are things Luke has, but these are denied as constituting Self. This seems to indicate that Self is a much deeper, more innate and complex entity, one that is likely to exist at the point of Luke's meager life thus far. I suggest that our Self is in many ways some fundamental aspect unique to the "lens" through which we view the world. Each one of us is completely and utterly alone in our observation of the world, at the most basic level. While experiences may change our mindset or ideas may be suggested/taught by others, EVERYTHING still comes to us through our own filter, the metaphorical "eyes" through which we experience existence. This reminds me of a philosophical idea called the "Problem of Other Minds" I learned about in a VSauce video I watched. The Problem of Other Minds basically suggests/questions that while us humans are so certain that everyone else is conscious and experiences life with their own mind, we have very little evidence to justify that. I don't want to sound too Matrix-y (and I haven't actually seen that movie), but in many ways, the only thing we can be certain of within our reality is our own self. I am not suggesting that he doesn't have a self because I can't be sure he's real, but rather that he does because our awareness/interpretation of existence is a most fundamental aspect of existence. Therefore, I posit that little Luke has a self because he has a "lens" through which he is viewing and interpreting the world, even if it is only in his little, adorable baby mind. ---- EDIT: If you're interested, here's an article about the Problem of Other Minds: plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/And here's the VSauce video about conciousness: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjfaoe847qQ ...And another one that discusses similar stuff if I just put you in an existential crisis mode: www.youtube.com/watch?v=L45Q1_psDqk The other videos on VSauce (a youtube channel) are equally interesting on a variety of very different topics. |
|
|
|
Post by betsyrahe on Sept 25, 2013 20:39:26 GMT
I think that's a very interesting idea. I too believe Luke has some sense of self. Over the summer I visited my cousins in California. They now have 2 very adorable toddlers. What I found so interesting was how clear their personalities were at such a young age. The two year old boy loved cars, the movie and the automobile. I always thought society told how we should fit into our gender, but little Johnny has had a small exposure to society. I use to believe in the Lockean idea of the "blank slate" that we are who we are because of our environment(people, society, etc), but I observed with my little cousins how much of a self they already had. I deposit the idea that genes have a strong input in what we are. I still believe that nurture and environment has a major effect on self but that's not all it. Little adorable Luke has some sense of self already. While it may not be what we view as self, such as Shane was saying, a self is present. Luke doesn't know his favorite genre or tv show(factors that as young adults we feel contributes to what make us). I do think that cute little Luke does have a self.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilybrinkmann on Sept 25, 2013 23:48:23 GMT
I agree with what my peers have said, that Luke has a sense of self even at 3 (now 4a) days old. As Morgan said, even when we are born we have characteristics that make us unique and differentiate us from other newborn babies. When I am around infants I cannot for certain tell their personalities apart, but I can definitely distinguish them from other newborns. Sometimes it is only small things that set us apart as individuals, and I believe these are already apparent at birth. What I notice about newborn babies are things like how observant they are to their surroundings, or how they hold themselves (well their hands and feet) which every infant does differently. These are not things that I can determine wether they will be musically talented or olympic athletes, but I can tell that they are their own self and unique from every other newborn baby. I agree with what Betsy said about our surrounding having a role in who we are. Our community, family, and environment play a tremendous part in our personalities. The opportunities our parents provide and the choices that are made on our behalf before we are even born, put us on a path to our sense of self. Siddhartha and Govinda appear to be on a similar path from the time they were infants, but they were always unique from each other. Siddhartha had a sense of curiosity and was aware of his surrounding. I think of newborns and their sense of self like a caterpillar before it turns into a butterfly. Caterpillars are unique and different from one another, even though they have not developed into butterflies. Luke is a unique and beautiful baby that is different from every other newborn, just as he will grow up to be a unique individual.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidqin on Sept 25, 2013 23:50:30 GMT
My initial response to this thread was that Luke does not have a self. Sorry Mr. Parris. I thought that one's unique self only comes with self-awareness, which science says comes at around 24 months. However, this definition of self takes into account the higher-level mental capabilities associated with self-awareness. When I became self-aware at around two and a half, I saw life consciously for the first time with the understanding that I am a unique individual and that other people have their own selves inside them. Consciously, I knew that I liked shrimp and detested raisins, that I loved trains and was afraid of snails. I knew of my own personality and individuality.
However, that's not to say that I did not have a self before then, and now I believe Luke indeed has a self. Having considered some of the responses above, now I think of self as a more basic level of identification (thanks to Shane for bringing this up). Luke may not know he is an intelligent being, and he certainly cannot memorize anything yet, but he still has his likes and dislikes. He may instinctively like some sort of music or food, and his attitudes towards life in general are to some extent already formed. I was a calm baby and rarely cried, and that fundamental part of my more basic self now carries over to my present and fully-aware self, which is somewhat imperturbable and rational. Likewise, Luke already has basic traits, determined from birth by genes or some other factor, that will surely carry over to his later life. In closing, I like to mention Siddhartha's journey to discover his self. When he is by the river, he finally realizes that the continuous stream of the river, carrying a multitude of personalities, is the parallel to his own self; he is both the past, the present, and the future at the same time in the same place. Similarly, Luke and I carry our pasts, presents, and futures with us all the time. My future has not yet happened, and it may not be determined yet (depending on your viewpoint), but it is nevertheless an integral part of who I am. Therefore, it is inaccurate to think of the past, present, and future as separate things if one considers the perspectives shown in Siddhartha, but rather, the past and future as just as contemporary as events in the present.
|
|
Kasey
New Member
Posts: 31 
|
Post by Kasey on Sept 26, 2013 0:07:59 GMT
OHMYGOD BABY. What a cutie patootie, please play with his toes or something for me.
Yes, he has a self. He has a name, which could easily be called "just a label", but I find names to be more like self identification. To take away someone's name is to dehumanize them, to take away their sense of selfhood. There is also the idea of experiences, and whether we define selfhood as memories or as experiences. Example: A timeline of baby life even before they can form memories: Warm place warm place warm place AHHHH BRIGHT LIGHT WAAAAHHHHH scary man with a mask snip ow wet stuff dry soft thing oh hi mom NAMED (identity) SIGNED FOOTPRINTED LEAVE.
According to science, babies don't really form memories, but that's not to say they don't have experience, or that he isn't automatically forming traits as his parents interact around him. To say he doesn't have a self is to say he lacks humanhood.
|
|
|
|
Post by stever on Sept 26, 2013 0:49:01 GMT
While Luke's self may be vastly different from the self that he has years from now, he still has a self. It may be constantly changing; his perspective on the world may alter several times, but his self remains. Emily's comparison to caterpillars and butterflies was quite fitting: although a caterpillar radically changes when it turns into a butterfly, it remains the same creature and its self stays constant.
A quote on page 113 further emphasizes this idea. Kamala says to Siddhartha "Now I see that your eyes have also changed. They have become quite different. How do I recognize that you are still Siddhartha? You are Siddhartha and yet you are not like him" (113). As Kamala points out, Siddhartha has gone through quite a transformation. However, even though it may be hard for Kamala to grasp that Siddhartha is still himself, she recognizes he is still Siddhartha. Kamala's reaction is pertinent to some of our opinions about the self. Many of us find it unusual that we our the same selves that we were when we were three days old, just as Kamala found it odd that the changed Siddhartha was still the same self.
The river metaphor in "Siddhartha" also emphasizes the idea that the self is constant even though it is constantly changing. On page 102, Hermann Hesse writes "He saw that the water continually flowed and flowed and yet it was always there; it was always the same and yet every moment it was new" (102). This quote demonstrates the paradoxical nature of the self: part of the self is always changing with time and another part of it is new. This paradoxical nature might be what makes us struggle to believe that we are the same self we were years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmeyer on Sept 26, 2013 1:07:31 GMT
I'm going to have to agree with what basically everyone else is saying: Yes, Luke does have "self". I couldn't pin down when exactly humans begin to have a "self", but right after birth is as good a time as any, partially because of what Casey said about names and identities. I really liked Morgan's point about there being no self to develop without having one in the beginning. I think the "self" evolves from our experiences, but as Betsy said, also from our surroundings. On the one hand, you could argue that one can't have "self" without having any experiences, but on the other hand, you could also argue that one can have "self" as a newborn. I think the easiest way to demonstrate this is to look at Siddhartha's journey: He wanted to find his "self" nearly all his life, and he had an extremely hard time trying to find it. Whether "find" means "define" or "discover" or "understand" is up in the air, but the point still stands that Siddhartha wanted to "find" his "self". If Siddhartha, at whatever indeterminate age we've decided he is, has that much trouble "finding" his "self", then why couldn't it have been there all along, tucked away, waiting to be "found"? I think if Siddhartha has to go to such depths to "find" his "self", then it must be buried really deep. And to be buried that deep, it must have been there for a really long time. Therefore - at the end of this really odd metaphor - I believe that even a newborn has "self" because "self" is always there, even right at the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessicalee on Sept 26, 2013 1:16:23 GMT
Okay so before I start off I would just like to say that he is precious!!! And now back to the main point.....
I am going to have to disagree with the majority and say that he does not have a self. NOT because he is a baby, but because I do not think it is possible to have a set standard of what a "self" even is. One's "self" is a perpetually changing process. There is never a point in time when one can simply find themselves because the different events in one's life constantly shape the "self". For instance, take the Masterworks of Literature list we created. Those works of art have all had an impact in our lives in some way or another. These impacts have shaped the way we view certain things or even our values and morals. In the end, isn't one's "self" about morals and values? So haven't these works of art in fact impacted and sometimes even drastically changed our "self"? I guess what I am trying to say is that no, Luke has not found a "self" simply because none of us have. He could be 3 days old or 300000000000000000000000000 days old and it would not matter because his "self" would still be changing everyday through his observations and conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattagritelley on Sept 26, 2013 1:19:51 GMT
Baby Luke has a self that is as real and evident as Siddhartha's, yours, or mine. Siddhartha describes a self as "thirst, desire, dreams, pleasure, and sorrow"(14). In essence, it is all of the things we feel in a uniquely individualized manner. One could argue that a self is an identity-- characteristics that define us and set us apart from others, that label and give meaning. At the beginning of the novel, Siddhartha wishes to eliminate his self, to purge its constricting existence to achieve a life of pureness. However, it is within this desire that he encounters a circuitous and paradoxical problem: how does one eliminate the characteristics, pleasures and desires that are inherent and inseparable from his own existence? Luke has a self, as does every person, living or dead. Our "self" is presented to us upon our arrival into the world and does not leave us with death. Even after the pulse wanes from our arteries and veins, the characteristics that make us unique remain tied to our identity.
Shane brought up an interesting point that I would like to both further and agree with: "I would like to pose the idea that Luke's self is a more fundamental level of self than the idea of self us older beings apply to ourselves. Luke does not define himself with personality traits. Nor does he have any meaningful experience to claim he has been shaped by." In essence, Shane is claiming that Luke's self is more simplistic due to his age. I agree with this, but in a partially different way. Imagine the self as a ball of play-doh fresh out of the tub. It's perfectly spherical and you're really hesitant to mess it up. This is Luke's self, freshly crafted and unaltered. However, with time, you begin to play with the ball, bend it into all sorts of fascinating shapes and structures. The play-doh will never be that perfect sphere again, but as you become more adept with your hands, you are able to create far more intricate designs. This metaphor reflects the idea of the malleable self. Luke's self is, simply by nature, more simplistic. However, that does not mean it is any less defining. Don't forget that the intricate structures and designs all include the same material that once made up the original sphere. As we age and experience more, our self changes and reveals different parts that may have been previously hidden. At birth, the self-- identity, thirst, desire, dreams, pleasure, sorrow, etc-- is created, albeit dormant in the depths of the young body and mind.
Luke has yet to discover his own idiosyncrasies and qualities that set him apart from the rest of the world. They remain within him, hiding, ready to reveal themselves at the proper time. Until then, the perfect sphere will not be disturbed. Its shape will come in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest #1 on Sept 26, 2013 1:22:12 GMT
It is commonly accepted within the scientific community that "self" begins at 2.64 days of life. Thus, if Luke is actually 3 days old in this image, he does have a sense of self. Hoorah, science!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sheridanf on Sept 26, 2013 1:30:46 GMT
Being the eldest of four and having the pleasure to witness my three siblings grow up (the youngest is 4, the eldest is 15), I can most definitely say that Luke Parris Page, age three days, has a Self, even if he himself doesn't realize it. The Self is something that most of us can't control- just as Siddhartha desperately tries (and fails) to destroy the Self when with the Samanas, Luke has a Self that is there even if he can't recognize it. But the Self isn't just your personality or your outlook on life. As seen in Siddhartha, these things can change many times (like seriously, how many times will Siddhartha "awaken" and become a completely different person?). Our lives are just a journey to reveal different parts of the complex Self, and our actions determine what parts of it will surface.
This is actually kind of a scary thought for me. There's some magical, intangible thing that makes up who I am, who I was, and who I will be, and I can't change any of it. I suppose the idea of the Self is just another way to explain fate in terms of how you yourself deal with the world. Fortunately there's a free will component to this idea as well, in that I have the power to take advantage of different parts of my Self. The beautiful thing about little children is that they are completely and utterly their Self. They don't know how to control any of it, and they are purely their own person, without any of that external influence. It almost saddens me that one day Luke Parris Page will start changing himself and concealing some of his Self, but it's something all of us one day do.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjharris on Sept 26, 2013 1:46:48 GMT
Of course. If he did not, then when would it suddenly appear? Is there a day, a moment, a minute, when suddenly the self is there? Though he is young (and very young indeed!) and he is not quite filled with knowledge or facts, with names and song lyrics, with the latest How I Met Your Mother episode or a repulsion to Miley Cirus's latest performance, doesn't mean there isn't a little boy in that brain. A seemingly blank piece of paper is still a piece of paper and, though it may be minute and inconspicuous, dust is gathering on that page, tiny pencil marks are being made on accident and every second that it exists it gains more and more character, till it is filled to every far corner with scribbles and notes, with knowledge and facts, with names and song lyrics, with the latest How I Met Your Mother episode and a repulsion to Miley Cirus's latest performance until the overall picture of Luke Parris Page is clear to all around it- but it is still there in the beginning. We just can't discern what it is yet.
|
|
joelk
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by joelk on Sept 26, 2013 1:57:33 GMT
3-day-old Luke Parris Page has consciousness. He has idiosyncrasies. He may even have a subconscious awareness. But (I believe) he does not have a self.
First, let’s get the connotations of this word out of the way. “Self,” as we are used to thinking of it, is some intangible uniqueness that everyone must certainly have, with the only similarity between two people’s “selves” being that both persons have one. I think we romanticize this word—perhaps confusing it, intentionally or not, with soul, humanity, essence, or the like—and I, at least, get the impression that we all feel it is a terrible thing to say that someone has no self. In fact, I was originally hesitant to say that I feel that Luke has no self for this very (connotation-based) reason. As I proceed with my point, though, I think you’ll see that I am not a) proposing that Luke is some “lesser” human or taking away his “humanhood,” or b) stating that I think he will never get a self.
(Actually, even Hesse’s narration itself distinguishes self from soul. When describing Siddhartha’s time with the Samanas, Hesse writes: “A dead jackal lay on the sandy shore and Siddhartha’s soul slipped into its corpse; he became a dead jackal…became a skeleton, became dust…he slipped out of his self in a thousand different forms” (15). In other words, Siddhartha leaves his self when he directs his soul into other beings, suggesting that the soul and self are two distinct entities.)
The basis of my opinion sits in what David mentioned: the fact that self-awareness only arrives when you’re around two years old. Self-awareness, as many have stated, is not necessary to be human, to have unique traits, or to be differentiated by another human or baby on some other level. But I think self-awareness is necessary to have a self, because I think Siddhartha suggests that self is the inner voice of unconsciousness and consciousness combined.
First, let’s examine the concept of self as it is present in Siddhartha (to avoid confusing or mixing in 50 different definitions or conceptions of self), and as self is presented in Siddhartha, self seems to be the inner guiding voice that hovers between conscious and unconscious thought, a voice that we all possess. When Siddhartha approaches a woman as he comes to the village and wants to make love to her, he hesitates, and, “At that moment he heard his inward voice and the voice said ‘No!’” (50). Although there seems to be no rational reason for Siddhartha’s decision (the fact that he had never before “touched a women” is offered only as an explanation for why he hesitates long enough to hear this “no”), he feels strongly that he should listen to his voice, or, as I would phrase it, his self.
The concept of the self as an inner voice made up of both conscious and unconscious thought can also be found in Siddhartha’s reflections on other people. When Siddhartha ponders the self on his way to the town where Kamala live, especially in relation to the Gotama, he realizes this duality:
As Siddhartha realizes, following some “voice” seems to be the best way to find the self. Since I think we can connect “thought” to conscious and “senses” to the more instinctual unconscious, Siddhartha finds that the Gotama is so enlightened because he can follow the voice that combines the two. And, since a large part of Siddhartha’s initial attempt to gain similar enlightenment connects to his own ability to interact with his “self” (hence why Siddhartha first tries “losing the self” through “pain…hunger, thirst, fatigue” (15)), I think we can also connect enlightenment to a solid understanding of one’s own self. Thus, the Gotama’s enlightenment comes from his ability to listen to his “self,” the voice of both senses and thoughts combined.
Siddhartha’s experience with the river and Vasudeva reaffirms the concept of the “self” as an inner voice. When Vasudeva takes Siddhartha to the river a final time, Hesse writes, “When Siddhartha listened attentively to this river, to this song of a thousand voices…when he did not bind his soul to any one particular voice and absorb it in his Self, but heard them all, the whole, the unity; then the great song of a thousand voices consisted of one word: Om—perfection” (136). Siddhartha hears Om because he does not absorb any single voice of the river into his “Self,” suggesting that any one of these voices would be enough to distract Siddhartha’s self. In turn, that implies that the “Self” is such a voice—Siddhartha’s self can only handle one voice at a time, unless it examines many in a much broader frame.
Thus, because a “self” appears to be an inner voice (a voice that arises from both conscious and unconscious thought) I do not think Luke yet has a self. He simply does not have the mental capacity to listen to this inner voice, this conscious manifestation of unconscious thought, nor does he have the self-awareness to recognize and distinguish such an inner voice from his other thoughts. So, while I am positive that Luke will develop a self when he reaches a stage in his mental development when he has a distinct conscious and unconsciousness, I believe that he does not have a self at three days old.
|
|
