Nature of Self

Self is taken to mean a sort of or unity of psycho-physical experiences. We may analyze our mental states, at any moment of our life, into certain elementary experiences, which, however, never exist in a vacuum, these experiences are found as parts of an organic unity but this unity crop up in this context involve the very crucial issue whether this unity is something above and beyond its contests ; how these disparate psycho-physical experiences are untied ; its quality of uniqueness and persistence through changes, etc, etc.

The meaning of the self, with its metaphysical, psychological and semantic distinctions, has become so ambiguous that many contemporary philosophers have doubted and even denied the existence of the self. For Hume, for example, apart from the bundle of successive bits of perception, nothing justifying the concept of self can be discerned by introspection. The problem of the self, it may be pointed out, derived its significance as well as relevance from the traditional method of starting with ones own case. The contemporary approach, on the other hand, is based on the contention that there is no distinction between identity in ones own case and identity in the case of others. This amounts to the contention that an understanding of ones own identity. This is the reason why most of the contemporary philosophers refuse to proceed to the problem of personal identity through that of the self. Rather they are wont to reject the latter as a pseudo problem. In Iqbal’s case, however, the problem of the self is of paramount importance. He sticks to the traditional approach of staring with one’s own case and treats the whole issue in the context of ‘self’ rather than that of ‘person’.

Iqbal begins by criticizing those who regards the self to be a separate entity over and above the mental states and experiences. He attacks the position taken by al-Ghazali, for whom the ego is a simple, indivisible and immutable ‘soul-substance’ remains the same for ever. This definition of self, however, does not give us any clue as to its nature. Firstly, it is a metaphysical entity and it has been assumed to explain our experiences. But, do our experiences inhere in it as colors inheres in a body – are they related to its as qualities are related to material substances ? Iqbal’s reply is in the negative. Secondly, Iqbal agrees with Kant that the unity of experience on which the simplicity and hence the immutability of the soul-substance is based neither proves its indivisibility nor immutability.

Iqbal also reject the bundles theory of self as represented by Hume and the psychologists it regards the self to be a mere fluke of sensation, feelings and thought. It studies them separately and dose not specify how the one is connected with the other. This reduces the self to a mere accumulation of experiences. The self, however, is not a mere bundle of experiences, an inner unity also. For Iqbal, it is this unity which is t he pivot of all experiences. It is the nucleus of our existence.

Obviously, Iqbal formulates his theory of the self with reference to both Kant and Hum. His most comprehensive statement on this issue is that follows : “I do not mean to say that the ego is over and above the mutually penetrating multiplicity we call experience. Inner experience is the ego at work. We appreciate the ego itself in the act perceiving. Judging and willing. The life of the ego is a kind of tension caused be the ego invading the ego. The ego does not stand outside this arena of mutual invasion. It is present in it as directive energy and is formed and disciplined by its own experience. For Iqbal, the experience of consciousness is a case of tension a state of self-concentration, by means of which life manages to shut out all memories and associations which have no bearing on a present action.”

A detailed discussion can be found in the book Iqbal’s concept of the self( a philosophical analysis)
By Asif Iqbal Khan.