Book Review - Losing Ourselves: Learning to Live Without a Self
Jay Garfield's latest book is a fascinating look at the arguments against the concept of the "self" and why it is a good thing that there isn't one.
In the first half of the book, Garfield spends his time discussing what the concept of "no self" would actually mean, then subsequently tearing through each argument against the idea of "no self".
No Self
For the uninitiated, the concept of a self is a way of talking about the intrinsic substance of what makes you, you. That is, when you look at all of your sense organs that make up your conception of your "self" where do you actually find yourself? Certainly it isn't sitting in your sense of taste, sight, etc. Maybe you think your self is sitting behind a command center within your head?
Garfield wants us to understand that this permanent fixture that we conceive of as our "self" doesn't actually exist.
It would be mistaken to think this is a play on semantics as well because he spends a great deal of time differentiating the idea of "self" that exists in a state that is mathematically equal to itself across time...vs a Person that has a conventional identity but no intrinsic "self".
The example I liked was that of a church that starts off with a number of congregants. Over time, some of them die, new ones are added, ministers change, the building gets upgraded, certain parts demolished. Is this the same church that was founded decades ago or a different one? Everything about it is different, however it makes sense to say that this church is decades old. So it has a conventional existence as a "church" but it is not identical to itself decades ago.
Why it might be good
After doing away with arguments against self he spends his time discussing why it is actually a good idea to not have one.
The basis of one argument is that by accepting the no-self argument we can open up our compassion for working together in the world that is more free of ego.
He invites us to think of ourselves as Persons rather than selves, and that your "self" is an illusion that gives you a dualistic mindset that feeds egocentricity that puts you at the center of the moral universe.
Final Words
I've gone into this book a bit biased around the no-self idea. I currently try to incorporate Buddhist philosophy and thought into my day-to-day life and the concept of no-self is core to shedding the illusions that lead to suffering in this life. So to that end this was a fascinating look at a very analytical take to the arguments against self.
I would say that to anybody unfamiliar, it might be a difficult sell but please read with an open mind and try to understand where he is coming from.
I will say, the one argument that didn't quite do it for me is that agains David Chalmers' philosophical zombies. The gist of that argument is that you can imagine a perfect copy of a human that behaves as a human does but that has no subjectivity. A copy of a human with no humanity. Garfield's dismissal seems to be that it is unfalsifiable so there's no point in regarding it. Though that may be, I do find the philosophical zombie argument compelling since it belies the heart of the hard problem of conciousness. I will give that a pass though since this book is not centered around that, which could take up a book itself.
All in all, I thought it was a great read. It is heavy on logical thinking in its deconstruction of arguments against "no-self". I will probably return to it time to time to refresh myself since this isn't a book you can fully absorb in one passing reading.