On the Possibility оf a Dual-Natured Self

Q3 Arts and Humanities
A. Vaidya
{"title":"On the Possibility оf a Dual-Natured Self","authors":"A. Vaidya","doi":"10.22363/2313-2302-2022-26-2-285-304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I examine compatibilism and incompatibilism about whether the self can be both a subject and an object in the same awareness at the same time. While this is an old debate that many traditions of philosophy have contributed to, my point of departure is the work of A.C. Mukerji (an Indian philosopher of the modern era) who worked on the possibility of self-awareness by articulating, what he called, the paradox of ego-centricity. I also consider Patañjali (an Indian philosopher of the classical era), Maurice Merleau-Ponty (a phenomenologist), and Arindam Chakrabarti (a contemporary Indian and Analytic philosopher) on the debate over compatibilism. First, I present Mukerji’s paradox, then I critically examine Patañjali and Merleau-Ponty’s arguments against incompatibilism. I move on to bring Mukerji’s paradox into contact with Chakrabarti’s arguments in favor of compatibilism. I critically examine Chakrabarti’s arguments in favor of compatibilism and against incompatibilism. While insightful and powerful, I argue that they can be resisted; and should be considered alongside Mukerji’s paradox. I close by offering an argument for compatibilism based on an analogy with particle-wave duality in quantum physics and the relation between conceivability and metaphysical modality.","PeriodicalId":32651,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RUDN Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2022-26-2-285-304","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper I examine compatibilism and incompatibilism about whether the self can be both a subject and an object in the same awareness at the same time. While this is an old debate that many traditions of philosophy have contributed to, my point of departure is the work of A.C. Mukerji (an Indian philosopher of the modern era) who worked on the possibility of self-awareness by articulating, what he called, the paradox of ego-centricity. I also consider Patañjali (an Indian philosopher of the classical era), Maurice Merleau-Ponty (a phenomenologist), and Arindam Chakrabarti (a contemporary Indian and Analytic philosopher) on the debate over compatibilism. First, I present Mukerji’s paradox, then I critically examine Patañjali and Merleau-Ponty’s arguments against incompatibilism. I move on to bring Mukerji’s paradox into contact with Chakrabarti’s arguments in favor of compatibilism. I critically examine Chakrabarti’s arguments in favor of compatibilism and against incompatibilism. While insightful and powerful, I argue that they can be resisted; and should be considered alongside Mukerji’s paradox. I close by offering an argument for compatibilism based on an analogy with particle-wave duality in quantum physics and the relation between conceivability and metaphysical modality.
论双重性自我的可能性
在这篇文章中,我考察了关于自我是否可以同时是同一意识中的主体和客体的相容性和不相容性。虽然这是许多哲学传统促成的一场古老的辩论,但我的出发点是A.C.Mukerji(现代印度哲学家)的作品,他通过阐明他所说的以自我为中心的悖论来研究自我意识的可能性。我还考虑了Patañjali(古典时代的印度哲学家)、Maurice Merleau-Ponti(现象学家)和Arindam Chakrabarti(当代印度和分析哲学家)关于相容主义的辩论。首先,我提出了穆克吉的悖论,然后我批判性地审视了帕塔尼贾利和梅洛-庞蒂反对不相容主义的论点。我继续将穆克吉的悖论与查克拉巴蒂支持相容主义的论点联系起来。我批判性地研究了查克拉巴蒂支持相容主义和反对不相容主义的论点。我认为,尽管它们富有洞察力和力量,但它们是可以抵制的;应该和穆克吉的悖论放在一起考虑。最后,我提出了一个相容性的论点,该论点基于量子物理学中粒子波对偶的类比以及可想象性和形而上学模态之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
RUDN Journal of Philosophy
RUDN Journal of Philosophy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信