We go through day to day life under the constant influence of our conscience. However, we never stop to think about the origin of our thoughts and how they can be interconnected in such a complex way. The same is true for the concept of the self; I would go as far to say that it is extremely rare to find someone who would be able to give a confident answer to the questions “What is the self?” and “How does the self work?” In some respects, the question seems so complicated and confusing that it may be easier to dismiss them as a whole. In The Buddha’s Philosophy, Buddha strives to live a life free of suffering. However, he uses the theory that the self is a made up illusion and does not actually exist in order to build his argument of why we should avoid suffering; I am in firm disagreement with this. Though using Rene Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, it becomes abundantly clear that Buddha’s denial of the self is simply incorrect. Peter Godfrey-Smith expands on this in Other Minds by defining the self as “feeling” something. While Buddha forms his beliefs around a denial of the self, Descartes’ cogito ergo sum proves that the self does, in fact, exist while Godfrey-Smith’s modern research on consciousness expands on this proof to further verify the existence of the self.
Of all the texts we have discussed this semester, Buddha’s philosophy is perhaps the simplest to understand and the most difficult to adapt your life towards. Buddhism is rooted in the belief that we need to cease all desire with the goal of living in complete peace. If one is able to halt desire, then they will not experience any suffering; for Buddha, suffering is caused completely by unfulfilled desires. He strives to live in the absence of both material and interpersonal attachments and care. In order to justify this, Buddha denies the existence of the self; this is the principle of Anatta. Simply put, he believes that the self is an illusion that causes desire, which in turn causes suffering. As described in The Buddha’s Philosophy, Gotama states that “He must pull out delusion by the root, by thinking no more in terms of ‘I’ ” (125). In this case, “I” is referring to the self. The larger goal of this text is to discuss the moral practices and standards of Buddhism rather than correcting misconceptions about the self. However, I fundamentally disagree with using an anti-self basis in order to justify the elimination of desires and suffering. When attempting to define the form of the self, it is hard to know where to begin. In a way, Buddha ignores the existence of the self because he does not know how to describe it.
A big part of the reason that Buddha has difficulty understanding the self is because it is constantly changing. Both on a biological level as well as on a mental level, we are never the same as we were a second ago. This makes sense if you consider the idea of “stream of consciousness.” Buddha believed that because there is no self, it is impossible to rely on and control consciousness. So, he concludes that “It is not possible to command: ‘Let my consciousness be thus, let not my consciousness be thus,’ ” (107). What is meant by this is we have no power to choose what our consciousness does or does not do. If we have no control over our consciousness, it makes sense that Buddha would say that there is no self. If there is no self, there is no controlling being over the operations of the conscience. While we cannot control all of the operations of our conscience, there are certainly some functions that we are able to control. Buddha’s view of consciousness does not account for the awareness and control we have over our thoughts and feelings.
Rene Descartes provides a simple explanation as to why Buddhists are wrong on their beliefs about the self. In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes goes on a quest for something that he can know with absolute certainty. He begins in the first Meditation by concluding that anything that has led him to doubt in the past can no longer be conceived as true or certain. This leads Descartes to the subject of his own thoughts in the second Meditation; much like Buddha, he restricts the existence of the body and senses. With everything that he thought to be certain cast into doubt, there is one thing that is impossible for him to deny. He discovers that “for all that, I am a thinking thing and which truly exists. But what kind of thing? As I have just said- a thinking thing,”(18). This is also referred to as cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore, I am. What Descartes proves here is that evidence for the self rests in the ability to produce thought; a thinker must precede the actual thinking. In using this approach, he understands that we do not have some kind of intuitive idea as to what the self is. Rather, Descartes understands that the ability to have thought alone proves existence. What Buddha misses is this kind of simplicity in thinking about the self. Descartes was able to prove that the self exists by discovering that thought and self existence are mutually exclusive; however, he does not attempt to explain what the self looks or feels like.
In Other Minds, Peter Godfrey-Smith expands on the work of Descartes through his discovery of subjective experience. Godfrey-Smith uses modern science and animal research to bridge the gap between self and consciousness. Analysis of animal consciousness is useful for explaining what the self looks like beyond a single thought defining its existence. Comparing humans and animals, he uses consciousness as a way to understand the self on a deeper level. A central idea of Godfrey-Smith’ is subjective experience, which he defines as, “the most basic phenomenon that needs explaining, the fact that life feels like something to us,” (18). What he means by this is that there is evidence for the existence of a being if it feels like something to be that thing. For example, we could ask the question what does it feel like to be a hippopotamus? It feels like something, and for Godfrey-Smith that is all the proof that is needed for the existence of the self.
Through Godfrey-Smith’s use of subjective experience and Descartes cogito ergo sum a major flaw in Buddha’s argument surfaces. The combination of subjective experience and the cogito ergo sum are able to disprove anti-self belief despite the difficulties caused by a changing conscience. The goal of a Buddhist life is to live in complete peace, without desires or suffering. Godfrey-Smith defines the self as feeling like something, Descartes defines it as thinking something. As humans, we know the inherent feeling of being in a state of complete tranquility, just as we know how mental chaos and suffering feels. Buddha does not deny the feeling of unfulfilled desire, his goals in life are based on avoiding it at all costs. He is consciously aware of the change in feeling between suffering and peace. Perhaps because Buddha has experienced both of these things to the extreme, it is understandable that he would be compelled to define the conscience as uncontrollable. In some sense, the extreme of both peace and suffering feels like everything is completely out of your control. Descartes defining the self as a thinking being opens the door for Godfrey-Smith to define the self as a being possible of thinking about what their experience feels like. If it feels like something to exist, then the existing thing must have a self in order to feel that way. Because Buddha does not deny feeling, he is implicitly admitting what he is trying to deny in stating that there is not a self. It is impossible for Buddha to know the difference in how it feels to be in a state of complete peacefulness versus suffering, and also claim that the self does not exist. Even in thinking of a way to counter this argument, Buddha would not be able to do so by virtue of the fact that he is thinking. When used in tandem, Godfrey-Smith’s concept of subjective experience and Descartes cogito ergo sum allows for Buddha to disprove his own anti-self position.
At first glance, the idea of trying to pin down a definition for self and consciousness may seem like an impossible task. Personally, I do not ever think that we will gain a complete and comprehensive understanding of what the self is and how consciousness works. However, a basic understanding of these subjects is more attainable than I initially thought after examining the works Buddha, Rene Descartes, and Peter Godfrey-Smith. In Meditations on First Philosophy, we are provided with a simplistic proof for our existence, while Other Minds dissects how the self feels on a deeper level. Both of these authors accurately disprove Buddha’s core anti-self belief in pointing out that Buddha knows the feeling of peace versus tranquility. Though Descartes cogito ergo sum in the second Meditation, and Godfrey-Smiths examination of subjective experience, there is clear proof for the self.
