Everyday Ethics

Most people generally take for granted that there is such a thing as a self, and that they have one.  The three major monotheisms would be lost without the concept of self, and most of us would have no idea how to describe who we are without making reference to something like this entity.  However, recent developments in the philosophy of mind have made the reality of the self contentious at best.  A greater understanding of materialism will help us to understand why the concept of the self is not as concrete as we might think.

Philosophy of mind seeks to answer a variety of questions regarding human consciousness, particularly giving an explanation of what human consciousness actually is and where it comes from.  The problem is essentially that we have a physical body with a self inside of it, and we’re not sure how these entities relate to one another.  Is the mind just a manifestation of our brains, or something else?  If the mind just is the brain, why does it have this quality of subjectivity that is entirely unlike anything else that we know of?  Answering these questions is the task of philosophy of mind, and they are extremely difficult.

Materialism is one answer to the question of how the mind and body are related.  Materialism states that the only substance is material substance.  Consciousness, whatever it seems like to us, can be explained by the physical processes of the brain.  As we learn more about the human mind it becomes increasingly likely that this explanation is correct.  To some extent this is not surprising, as the suggestion that there might be two kinds of substance, physical and mental, requires that we subscribe to the existence of a very mysterious kind of dualism. 

The materialist explanation of the self, though not fully complete, explains the self by way of the activity of the brain.  At the risk of a gross oversimplification, the materialist claims that consciousness is a continuous sensory experience, an infinite chain of mental “moments” created by the activity of our brains.  These moments are strung together contiguously, such that we experience a continuity that we call consciousness.  It is this consciousness that we identify as a self.  But in reality there is nothing there beyond the product of our brains firing neurons and processing signals to produce this phenomenon.  There is no self apart from this chain of material events.

Most people will likely find this explanation incredibly troubling, as we are deeply attached to our “selves,” in both an emotional and literal sense.  If the reality of materialism proved to be true and became widespread, it’s not clear how people would respond, but my hypothesis is that some of our most basic assumptions would start to seem ridiculous.  Everything from religious faith to moral responsibility depends on the idea that the self is a real thing, and the denial of this would require a restructuring of countless social institutions, not to mention our own everyday beliefs about what is going on.

In all likelihood there is nothing to fear from the possibility that materialism is true.  First, if it’s true, it has always been true and we seem to get along just fine in spite of this.  In addition, the idea that there is such a thing as a self is an excellent tool for helping us get around in the world.  Having a concept of self allows us to reflect upon our behaviors and their impact on others, which promotes greater social cohesion.  So even if materialism proves to be true, the socially useful qualities of the self remain undeniable.  The useful fiction of the self may turn out to indeed be a fiction, but this does not undermine its usefulness.  

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.