SELF

[Waechter418]

There are quite a few interpretations of Self; for example: there is the Self of Ego, the Self called Soul, the Hindu Atman and a universal Self. Whatever the inerpretations – Self is the core and in a certain way the coordinate of every human being.
Possibly due to the difficulties of defining Self, the relationship with its beholder gets sometimes stressed – even so far, that latter doubts the presence of prior.
But Self is vital, as it knows the true nature and needs of its beholder and thus becomes particular important when turmoil and confusion threaten its physical & mental wellbeing.
There are many unification teachings, but most of them focus on a higher instead on a common Self, despite that we are selfish creatures and thus foremost interested in our own troubles, and who is more qualified to handle them but Self.

[Marvin_Edwards]

who is more qualified to handle them but Self.

In some cases a psychologist may be more qualified to handle the self's troubles than the self.

[Pattern-chaser]

Depending what we mean by "self", Buddhists believe there is no such thing, that the 'self' is an illusion. I'm not asserting this is correct, but I am observing that the very concept of self might be subject to some doubt. So self is something, perhaps like consciousness, that we have difficulty defining or describing, never mind explaining.

[Sculptor1]

who is more qualified to handle them but Self.

In some cases a psychologist may be more qualified to handle the self's troubles than the self.

Do you mean psychiatrists?

It's usually a big mistake to allow a psychologist to "handle" you.

[Terrapin Station]

"Self is an illusion" makes little sense. The "illusion" would be the mental phenomena of self, and that's all that self is.

We could maybe say that many people have misconceptions about what self is, where they have something in mind other than the mental phenomena of self, but the mental phenomena can't be illusory in themselves, because they're not representing something else. They are what they are.

In other words, in order to experience an illusion, we need both (a) a phenomenal experience of something and (b) the different thing that the phenomenal experience is correlated to, where our phenomenal experience (usually via perception) is getting something wrong. An example is when you watch a magician and you think that they've made something disappear. Your phenomenal experience of that is getting something wrong--they didn't really make something disappear, they simply used sleight of hand to hide it from you. Another example is a mirage--your phenomenal experience seems to be of a water puddle on the road ahead, but that's not what it really is, it's really a phenomenon of light due to heat, etc.

Well, with self, we're only talking about the phenomenal experience per se. There's no (b), and so there's nothing to get wrong; there can be no illusion.

[Marvin_Edwards]

"Self is an illusion" makes little sense. The "illusion" would be the mental phenomena of self, and that's all that self is.

We could maybe say that many people have misconceptions about what self is, where they have something in mind other than the mental phenomena of self, but the mental phenomena can't be illusory in themselves, because they're not representing something else. They are what they are.

In other words, in order to experience an illusion, we need both (a) a phenomenal experience of something and (b) the different thing that the phenomenal experience is correlated to, where our phenomenal experience (usually via perception) is getting something wrong. An example is when you watch a magician and you think that they've made something disappear. Your phenomenal experience of that is getting something wrong--they didn't really make something disappear, they simply used sleight of hand to hide it from you. Another example is a mirage--your phenomenal experience seems to be of a water puddle on the road ahead, but that's not what it really is, it's really a phenomenon of light due to heat, etc.

Well, with self, we're only talking about the phenomenal experience per se. There's no (b), and so there's nothing to get wrong; there can be no illusion.

Good point. When I hear someone say that the "self" is an illusion, I like to ask them, "Then who or what is having the illusion?"

[Waechter418]

Subjecting Self to intellectual/logical exercises tends to fragment/obscure Self and thus impede/reduce its usefullnes

[Marvin_Edwards]

Subjecting Self to intellectual/logical exercises tends to fragment/obscure Self and thus impede/reduce its usefullnes

One needs to take a pragmatic approach, by asking what we mean by the term "self" in different practical scenarios. All personal pronouns reference the self or selves. Grab any sentence and describe what the term means in that context.

[Sculptor1]

I've never had a problem with the idea of self, and do not think that the idea is capable of analysis, since the self (such as it is) is the substrate of all thinking and experience.

[Waechter418]

Common Self includes the "heart" and the "intuition" foremost cherished by women and natives,who usually mark the the solar plexus as its location.
Attributes like "inner guide" and "guardian angel" indicate its function and use.

[Papus79]

I think the question about 'self' that remains a bit tricky for me is this: is it primarily a survival tool that we then seek self-actualization, self-authoring, etc. through when environments and intellect allows or is that just what the formation of it looks like from the assembly line or thinking of it in evolutionary terms? One thing for certain - when we can't pin it to any larger teleological goal a lot of those questions seem like they're futile, so your really then just stuck with picking whatever story both works and does so with the least offence to one's need for truth or accuracy.

[Consul]

Recommended reading:

Eric Olson: There is no problem of the self (PDF)

"Abstract: Because there is no agreed use of the term 'self', or characteristic features or even paradigm cases of selves, there is no idea of "the self" to figure in philosophical problems. The term leads to troubles otherwise avoidable; and because legitimate discussions under the heading of 'self' are really about other things, it is gratuitous. I propose that we stop speaking of selves."

[h_k_s]

There are quite a few interpretations of Self; for example: there is the Self of Ego, the Self called Soul, the Hindu Atman and a universal Self. Whatever the inerpretations – Self is the core and in a certain way the coordinate of every human being.
Possibly due to the difficulties of defining Self, the relationship with its beholder gets sometimes stressed – even so far, that latter doubts the presence of prior.
But Self is vital, as it knows the true nature and needs of its beholder and thus becomes particular important when turmoil and confusion threaten its physical & mental wellbeing.
There are many unification teachings, but most of them focus on a higher instead on a common Self, despite that we are selfish creatures and thus foremost interested in our own troubles, and who is more qualified to handle them but Self.

And ???

Is there a point to your statements?

[h_k_s]

who is more qualified to handle them but Self.

In some cases a psychologist may be more qualified to handle the self's troubles than the self.

And ???

Is there a point to your statement as well?

[h_k_s]

Depending what we mean by "self", Buddhists believe there is no such thing, that the 'self' is an illusion. I'm not asserting this is correct, but I am observing that the very concept of self might be subject to some doubt. So self is something, perhaps like consciousness, that we have difficulty defining or describing, never mind explaining. 🤔

I like the Buddhist notion of karma.

I also like the Buddhist prohibitions of the 5 professions of:

alcohol manufacture or distribution
poison making or use
assassination
firearms manufacturing or distribution
meat slaughtering or distribution

However, I have nothing against alcohol use, firearms ownership, and hunting/slaughtering game animals or beef.