And, I suspect, that is because we construe the meaning of “self” here in very different ways. In regard to such things as acquiring and then accumulating value judgments and in ascribing meaning to my life, “I” for me, in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, is an existential contraption ever and always subject to the uncertainties embedded in new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge. We just never really know for certain what is waiting for us around the next corner.
But this rather precarious and problematic “self” can be rather disturbing for some. It certainly is to me. But unlike others I am no longer able to think myself into believing that a foundation can be grasped such that the “real me” is able to acquire and then sustain the psychological comfort clearly derived “objectively” from one or another set of religious, political or moral assumptions.
Not only can rational men and women answer the question, “how ought one to live?”, but they are even able to convince themselves that it is their moral obligation to choose behaviors wholly in sync with what [philosophically or otherwise] can be known.
Then it’s just a matter of choosing between the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of historical dogmas that have already been invented. Or, sure, make up an entirely new one.
Like yours, right?
And then back to this:
What I am accusing you is you lack intellectual integrity by relying on reference to Heidegger and the Buddha without understanding the substance of the matter.
Let’s suppose for a moment that there really is that one precise manner in which to understand the “substance” that Heidegger and the Buddha meant to convey to the world.
And let’s suppose that you are one of the few who understand it.
So, which of them reflects the most rational understanding of human interactions? Interactions in particular embedded in conflicts revolving around wholly out of sync moral narratives and political agendas.
Choose a context, a set of conflicting behaviors and flesh out the points that you are convinced that they were making.
But, no, you won’t go there. Not until I am willing to convince you that I truly do understand [intellectually, philosophically] their arguments and assessments in the right way.
And, of course, that means starting with their definitions.
And, if you’re lucky [with some], you might never get around to bringing them down to earth.