I have to ask if you have any background with metaphysics.
I've managed to read a book or two; however, I really do not see the relevance of the question. My claim is that it is possible to reject metaphysics. You claim this is not possible. If anything, I must wonder if you
have any "background with metaphysics" because there have been books published in which the author's claim things like 'metaphysics is pointless'.
For an example easily accessible, you should read the Stanford Encyclopedia entry entitled "Metaphysics" by Peter van Inwagen:
Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
He certainly has a background in metaphysics, more so than you, me, or anyone else on this forum. And he argues "that metaphysics-however defined-is an impossible enterprise."
This is fast becoming oratoric dialogue, and leaving the realm of deductive reasoning.
There is nothing "oratoric" about our discussion, at least on my part. I'm simply claiming that rejecting metaphysics is possible. Considering I have presented clear evidence that rejecting metaphysics is possible (because, apparently you are unfamiliar with such literature) there is little to argue about.
The "self" is an attribute, connected invariably to the substance to which it identifies. If on the other hand you talked of the "soul," then it seems plausible because that is transcendental in virtue of its concept. But the "self" is an attribute, not a self existing thing. That's just basic sense, for the self implies ownership to a thing.
In psychology, "self" is most basically the conscious personality. Some people argue that "self" is what is most essential to us. It is possible to reject this notion of self.
It is also possible to reject the notion that the "substance", of which "self" is an attribute, exists in of itself. It is possible to reject "being as such" outright.
Remember, when I discussed "self", my argument was this: "If we reject the notion of an unchanging self, there is no "being as such" to study."
You did not accurately represent my argument. Here it is again:
1. metaphysics studies being as such and first causes
2. If there is no such thing as a first cause or being as such, then we should reject metaphysics
3. There is no such thing as a first cause
4. There is no such thing as being as such
5. Therefore, we should reject metaphysics
I have not made any argument to support 3 or 4, and if I was
rejecting metaphysics I should support those two claims. Instead, I am arguing that it is possible to reject metaphysics. In this argument I show how someone can reject metaphysics if they reject the subject of metaphysics.
Is it possible to reject first causes? yes
Is it possible to reject 'being as such'? yes
Therefore, it is possible to reject the study of metaphysics outright.
We can argue the coherency of rejecting metaphysics if you like, but that's not what I've attempted to prove here.
No, it's not a complete shift. It's the essence of what I've argued this whole time. That you attempted to superimpose another debate into the thread is no fault of mine. My claim was that it is possible to reject metaphysics because we can reject that which the subject consists of - being as such and first causes.
Well, Peter van Inwagen is certainly no chump. Even then, much of eastern "metaphysics" consists of explanations as to why the western endeavor of metaphysics is silly.
If we reject metaphysics, if we have no place for 'being as such' or 'first causes', we can talk about self, according to it's definition in psychology, however, we are left with a self which is constantly changing and defies a great deal of discourse (Descartes, et al.) regarding the self, especially any discussion of some thing essentially you which exists, or exists to carry on to some other life, whatever the figurative trappings.
This is especially true if we equate "self" with Atman. Remember, Buddhist understand Atman (the same sanskrit word) as some thing independent of everything else, as being a cause of samsara.
As a side not, you have a habit of misquoting me, whether it's blatant changes (as mentioned above) or bolded insertions, I really have no idea why you do so. Are these simple errors made, if perhaps you are retyping my words? Or what?