Author
Listed:
- Oleh Levin
- Denys Zhadiaiev
Abstract
The idea of the self is still a philosophical problem for psychology, neurology, and even international law borrows ideas of the self to interpret the phenomenon of national identity and develop further regulations. The ambiguity surrounding the concept of the self creates challenges for academic and formal definitions, necessitating thorough analysis in this paper. Thus, the aim was to provide the reader with a series of non-substantial and non-dualistic versions of the self. In this paper the authors tried to approach the subject (the self) from microgenetic point of view based on works of Jason W. Brown. This analysis was justified by the non-linear, non-substantial and non-dualistic paradigms growing popular in globalised world and in academic communities. In particular, it was established that European Society for Process Thought, Claremont Process Nexus, International Process Network and other societies offer series of conferences on regular basis for many years to satisfy the need in more accurate definitions of the non-substantial versions of the self. It is demonstrated that duality of the self and the world can be eliminated by consideration of the self from the process point of view, that is, as a dynamical subject-superject, not a classic subject-object relation. The results of the paper can be used by PhD students, scholars and researchers in their further advances in neurology, psychology, law, identity studies, sociology that aim to provide both theoretical and practical solutions in their areas
Suggested Citation
Oleh Levin & Denys Zhadiaiev, 2024.
"The self and its values as content per se in terms of microgenesis and process philosophy,"
Philosophy, Economics and Law Review Articles, Philosophy, Economics and Law Review, vol. 4(2), pages 8-15, December.
Handle:
RePEc:cxt:phelrj:v:4:y:2024:i:2:p:8-15
DOI: https://doi.org/10.63341/2786-491X-2024-2-8
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cxt:phelrj:v:4:y:2024:i:2:p:8-15. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Philosophy, Economics and Law Review (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://phelr.com.ua/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.