Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: The problem with saying "I"...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
“One of the most misleading representational techniques in our language is the use of the word ‘I,’ particularly when it is used in representing immediate experience, as in ‘I can see that red patch.’ It would be instructive to replace this way of speaking by another in which immediate experience would be represented without using the personal pronoun; for then we’d be able to see that the previous representation wasn’t essential to the facts. Not that the representation would be in any sense more correct than the old one, but it would serve to show clearly what was logically essential in the representation.”---Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Remarks, pg. 88

"One short and simple evidence that ‘I’ is a misleading representational technique: we use the word ‘I’ to conflate countless different meanings. When one says, “I am hungry,” they use ‘I’ to refer to a body which physically requires food. When one says, “I was sad,” they refer to a previous state of mind that their former self possessed. When one says, “I feel happy,” they refer to the state of mind that their current self possesses. When one says, “I should be more kind,” they refer to both the current self and their future self, saying that both of these identities should change their actions to be more kind. So what does ‘I’ mean? Is it your body? Your current self? Your past self? Your future self? Your general identity? Using the misleading word ‘I’ allows you to escape all these questions."---Jeremy Hadfield

In truth we never have any immediate experience of the I. It is only posited in how we speak and frame our thoughts and actions in the world. It is an example of a useful fiction, retained not because it is real but because it reinforces a certain working model of our experience. In reality it is just a bogus add-on to what we are trying to describe and communicate. Like the usually not required return address up in the corner of all our mailed letters. A tag of ownership on all the things we say and do. Ofcourse what we are saying or writing is ours, else why would we be saying it?

The problem though with taking this "I-ness" too literally, as anything more than the arrow of "You are here" on our map of reality, is that it leads to all sorts of questionable beliefs about identity and moral absolutes and even mental health. We fall for a sort of socially constructed narrative of being just a self-same character in the drama of life. Just one among 8 billion protagonists in the Darwinian struggle to exist. That your whole purpose in life is just to drive this epic plot line. It is not. Everything in your life happens just for you already. There is no need to claim it or possess it or label ourselves with it. Play the roles you need to. But don't take them literally. Because in the end there is no "I".
Notice how no one quoted gives any alternative way to phrase those examples.
I assume people with anendophasia would have less of a sense of experiencing themselves.
For everyone else, there is certainly the ability to experience oneself, even thinking about our thoughts, thinking about thinking about thoughts, etc. (IOW, first-person, second-person, etc.).
(Nov 6, 2025 05:51 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Notice how no one quoted gives any alternative way to phrase those examples.
I assume people with anendophasia would have less of a sense of experiencing themselves.
For everyone else, there is certainly the ability to experience oneself, even thinking about our thoughts, thinking about thinking about thoughts, etc. (IOW, first-person, second-person, etc.).

Life without I’s……

Thought of Descartes: “think therefore am”. Then there’s God’s first words to Moses “am who am”. Who can forget Popeye’s mantra: “Yam what yam and that’s all that Yam”.
Just omitting "I" as the subject of a statement would be one way of doing it. Just say for example "Seeing a rainbow" as opposed to "I'm seeing a rainbow." Or "Feeling sad" as opposed to "I'm feeling sad." At least linguistically one is only identifying with the experience or action itself instead of to some assumed "I" entity. The subject as a verb instead of as a pronoun.
(Nov 6, 2025 06:20 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Just omitting "I" as the subject of a statement would be one way of doing it. Just say for example "Seeing a rainbow" as opposed to "I'm seeing a rainbow." Or "Feeling sad" as opposed to "I'm feeling sad." At least linguistically one is only identifying with the experience or action itself instead of to some assumed "I" entity. The subject as a verb instead of as a pronoun.

The possessive 'I' can be used as a means of personification. People often personify for the sake of humor. Or for a whimsical play on words. But they often overlook the fact that others merely spare their feelings without adding insult to injury.
(Nov 6, 2025 06:20 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Just omitting "I" as the subject of a statement would be one way of doing it. Just say for example "Seeing a rainbow" as opposed to "I'm seeing a rainbow." Or "Feeling sad" as opposed to "I'm feeling sad." At least linguistically one is only identifying with the experience or action itself instead of to some assumed "I" entity. The subject as a verb instead of as a pronoun.

No, "seeing a rainbow" can be either a noun phrase, as in "seeing a rainbow is beautiful," or a predicate without a noun. So these sorts of sentences are non-grammatical and inherently ambiguous. You're also not just dropping "I." You are also dropping the verb "am" from those sentence fragments.

You cannot make a verb into a subject without it being part of a noun phrase... and then lacking any predicate verb.
No..saying "seeing a rainbow" is just a verb with a predicate. It's not a "noun phrase" whatever that is. It's the indication of an experience of something without positing an I subject. And it's no more ambiguous than exclaiming "A rainbow!" upon seeing one. It's a statement of exactly what's happening.
MR Wrote:..I..
..your whole purpose in life is just to drive this epic plot line..
Er.
I think you might have struck philosophical gold with that line.
(Nov 7, 2025 12:38 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]
MR Wrote:..I..
..your whole purpose in life is just to drive this epic plot line..
Er.
I think you might have struck philosophical gold with that line.

Tks. Sometimes in the maddening flurry of what to say next I get lucky and actually stumble upon something that gets it right.
(Nov 7, 2025 12:36 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]No..saying "seeing a rainbow" is just a verb with a predicate. It's not a "noun phrase" whatever that is. It's the indication of an experience of something without positing an I subject. And it's no more ambiguous than exclaiming "A rainbow!" upon seeing one. It's a statement of exactly what's happening.

Like I said, it could be a noun phrase or a verb... either way a sentence/idea fragment with ambiguous meaning.

noun phrase - a word or group of words that functions in a sentence as subject, object, or prepositional object.

9_9
"A rainbow" cannot be a verb, leading to less ambiguity.
But I guess you'd prefer people run around talking like toddlers pointing at things.
Pages: 1 2 3