Laurens
New Member
I was reading a little bit about Libertarianism the other day, and I came upon one of their core principles of the fundamental right to self ownership.
This got me thinking about the nature of the self, and whether or not it is something we could claim ownership of in any way.
The first problem, I think, is that ownership implies some kind of control, and there are many aspects of ourselves which we resolutely do not have control over. I had no control over where I was born, what I look like, who my parents are, my siblings, my gender, my sexual preference etc. I cannot control when I get sick, when I need to urinate and defecate, when I feel tired, and ultimately when I die. Can I really claim a fundamental right to own something that I have so little control over?
Of course there are aspects of the self that I at least have the illusion of being able to control some of the time, my speech, my movement, my thoughts etc, but even these step beyond the bounds of my control sometimes. If an object hurtles towards my head I flinch, with little say in the matter. My thoughts are influenced by things that I hear, see, smell, touch etc.
We have so little control over so many aspects of ourselves and our lives. Can we really own ourselves?
This leads me to another thing I was thinking about; what is my self.
I have always been under the impression that the 'thing' that I would define as my self is a conglomerate of many different aspects, my body, my brain being major factors, but also a whole load of external things go into making up who I am. Experiences, likes, dislikes, friends, family, music and so on. Is it even possible to define exactly what 'self' is, let alone claim ownership over it?
I guess I was initially calling into question the Libertarian principle of self ownership, but that question does raise some interesting ideas about the nature of the self in general.
Do you think we can own ourselves? What is our 'self' anyway?
This got me thinking about the nature of the self, and whether or not it is something we could claim ownership of in any way.
The first problem, I think, is that ownership implies some kind of control, and there are many aspects of ourselves which we resolutely do not have control over. I had no control over where I was born, what I look like, who my parents are, my siblings, my gender, my sexual preference etc. I cannot control when I get sick, when I need to urinate and defecate, when I feel tired, and ultimately when I die. Can I really claim a fundamental right to own something that I have so little control over?
Of course there are aspects of the self that I at least have the illusion of being able to control some of the time, my speech, my movement, my thoughts etc, but even these step beyond the bounds of my control sometimes. If an object hurtles towards my head I flinch, with little say in the matter. My thoughts are influenced by things that I hear, see, smell, touch etc.
We have so little control over so many aspects of ourselves and our lives. Can we really own ourselves?
This leads me to another thing I was thinking about; what is my self.
I have always been under the impression that the 'thing' that I would define as my self is a conglomerate of many different aspects, my body, my brain being major factors, but also a whole load of external things go into making up who I am. Experiences, likes, dislikes, friends, family, music and so on. Is it even possible to define exactly what 'self' is, let alone claim ownership over it?
I guess I was initially calling into question the Libertarian principle of self ownership, but that question does raise some interesting ideas about the nature of the self in general.
Do you think we can own ourselves? What is our 'self' anyway?
Libertarianism is most certainly about one's interactions with peoples and societies. And Libertarianism values "Individualism". In the case you describe, it would be more prudent to simply say that the "Libertarian" philosophy states that one has the right to dictate the actions of one's self, and not to be commanded to do so. It can be considered distinctly anti-totalitarian in that sense too. BUT: before someone brings this up, I cannot see how such a position is incompatible with a belief in laws, for instance. I've never met a single libertarian who does not agree that we all as individuals, ought to have equal rights under the law for pragmatic reasons. But for the most part, you are right. It's about the right of individuals to not be "dominated" by others. But seriously. I think it's pretty hard to reduce it to simply "You can't tell me what to do".