the induction of the self

[_rck_]

This morning I figured out something about the way we constitute the self that was rather surprising to me (I make no promises that it will be surprising to you

Comments

[mijopo]

Your laudable attempt to get a handle on what it means to be true to one's self is a good reminder of the practical utility of the positivists' old verification principle in cutting through crap. One often hears calls to be "true to one's self" and whenever I hear such a thing I can't help wonder what it could mean for one to fail to do this. People insisting that it is a worthwhile objective owe us a non-bullshit laden account of what constitutes one's "true self" and how one could ever come to gain knowledge of it and/or where/when one has failed to be true to it.

(Nice to see you posting on LJ again. FB is great but the comment boxes are far too tiny.)

[_rck_]

Oh, I think victims of all types use this phrase to separate the abuse they have suffered from their inner self worth. Presumably many sex workers would argue that it is not their "true self" to trade sexual behaviours for economic reimbursements. In these cases it is a valid operation, and what happens there is a form of self-defense.

That said, your concern about the phrase has some merit as well; it is after all a literary one. I do not know whether Polonius' advice to his departing son in Hamlet is the earliest reference, but it is clearly the one for the lyrical form of the expression. And while Shakespeare was a pioneer of modern English and possibly a good judge of character, and while the advice list of Polonius is supposed to be a bag of contradictory statements, Shakespeare was not a philosopher.

[mijopo]

"Shakespeare was not a philosopher"

Or, at least not an analytic philosopher :)