Why is the goal/desire (values) to be made specific but the personal identity (self) to be held loosely?
Wouldn't someone eventually identify with their goals, and call it the "true self"?
"I am the kind of person who wants epic things".
I suppose this is an identification with the mask that Zizek mentioned, but it's the opposite of "imprisoning yourself by your persona" that BAP mentioned.
I can certainly see how both might be appreciated: holding an identity loosely and being very specific about goals. It's a balance tho. Because what fuels the desire if not the ego?
Bc in general you need a specific goal to have intereresting/epic life, but you need not have a specified metaphysics of the self for that.
Yes, one can call that self whatever, esp. if that makes him stronger (in broad sense; see https://danfaggella.com/potentia). But that doesn't resolve the metaphysics, nor does it show such psychological identity was somehow necessary -- as some preestablished psychological core.
Ego in some sense is there, yes, but again, it doesn't mean there's some metaphysical, or (preestablished) psychological, core. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I try to avoid this Q in my consultations, unless the client insists on discussing them.
Good post!
Why is the goal/desire (values) to be made specific but the personal identity (self) to be held loosely?
Wouldn't someone eventually identify with their goals, and call it the "true self"?
"I am the kind of person who wants epic things".
I suppose this is an identification with the mask that Zizek mentioned, but it's the opposite of "imprisoning yourself by your persona" that BAP mentioned.
I can certainly see how both might be appreciated: holding an identity loosely and being very specific about goals. It's a balance tho. Because what fuels the desire if not the ego?
Bc in general you need a specific goal to have intereresting/epic life, but you need not have a specified metaphysics of the self for that.
Yes, one can call that self whatever, esp. if that makes him stronger (in broad sense; see https://danfaggella.com/potentia). But that doesn't resolve the metaphysics, nor does it show such psychological identity was somehow necessary -- as some preestablished psychological core.
Žižek talks about a mask/goal that suits you, BAP about rejecting masks that don't suit. Read the referenced passages from Nietzsche in https://blackbeardphilosopher.substack.com/p/on-real-self. Most should be here, http://nietzsche.holtof.com/index.htm
Ego in some sense is there, yes, but again, it doesn't mean there's some metaphysical, or (preestablished) psychological, core. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I try to avoid this Q in my consultations, unless the client insists on discussing them.
Many thx. But are you AI, or are you not?