[lit-ideas] Re: The Donalling of Donal
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 16:48:29 +0100 (BST)
--- Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Oct 6, 2004 4:05 AM
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Donalling of Donal
>
>
> Donal is not reducible to what Donal does: Donal is, in part, a *self* and
> Donal is a complex of *dispositions* and neither of these are reducible to
> what he does.
>
>
> A.A. If we aren't what we do, then what are we?
To be clear and I not saying we are not at all what we do, just that we are
not merely what we do. Our selfhood and dispositional range are not reducible
to our actions: a self is not a mere 'doing' and neither is a disposition.
Not everything that exists is a 'doing'.
>What does one call a self
> that sits and does nothing?
For a long time the answer was Brian Wilson. But I don't see the relevance of
the question to the issue - are we merely what we do, or is there more to
it/us than that?
>Even sitting and doing nothing is doing
> something.
Yes, this is true, though I find it is often hard to convince the boss. Even
sleeping the body is active - active, for example, in maintaining the state
of sleep. But this does not mean we are simply what we do.
Donal
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
