Talk:Open individualism

Albert Einstein

Quoting Einstein:

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of piece of mind.

I think that this makes his view regarding personal identity similar to open individualism, like Erwin Schrödinger and other physicists. Why was his name removed from the article? JonatasM (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I did not and not at any time remove some Einstein reference from the article, though I too would appreciate (removing) it at any time again. Apart from the fact that, in all probability and for rather trivial reasons (he's dead), we'll never know for certain about Einstein's stance on the topic (if, indeed, he even had one and/or was familiar with the view as such; as for Schrödinger for example, the case is very different), here's why: At least the citation you provided by no means suffices in order to nail that down. Instead, and as it stands, these words are interpretable in a good many ways; and, to be frank, anything even just remotely related to the view now known as Open individualism is not what at least I can make of it. He's been speaking there as a scientist! As a natural scientist, to be precise, not as a philosopher. Open individualism on the other hand pretty much is a philosophical hypothesis--it is, at the very core, about personal identity--thus it has nothing to do at all with the phenomenon of consciousness, or time, or space, or alleged subjective "illusions" in such respects, or any of those other matters that Albert Einstein, as the natural scientist he was, surely occupied primarily. I've noted that you understand this (single..) quote as revealing "his view regarding personal identity". But that is only your interpretation of it. It's not mine. A thing, however, I'd like to point out here is that Einstein did not even use the term "(personal) identity" in this quote (he speakes of "selves", yes, but that isn't yet identity). Which is not surprising, since he generally did not use such terms too often. Though if.. that was what he's been driving at, why didn't he use it? Not least because Einstein has never been an orator of the overly obscure kind?! No, in the absence of evidence that really makes it clear his views on (personal) identity properly amount to (being merely "comparable" isn't enough, really) Open individualism, Einstein shouldn't be mentioned here. As an aside: A name as prominent as his furthermore is notably absent in Kolak's book itself! That should make you think?

Einstein's quote could just as easily be interpreted as rather hinting at something more in the direction of a panpsychism or even pantheism. Both of these views do not amount to (much less were they equal to) Open individualism. I've also and for this very reason just removed links to "pantheism" and "panentheism" from the article. Please, do not put them back in. You're not helping people. Open individualism as such has got nothing to do with any systems of "-theisms" whatsoever. Quite the contrary, some might even opine it actually runs counter to them! (Although I for one am not sure whether this is necessarily the case. Nevermind.) Anyway, this is not about religion, it is about the philosophy of personal identity and, really, no more nor less. Zero Thrust (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The relevant part is philosophical. This quote from him is from a letter sent as consolation to a man whose son had just died. What does this imply? "He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness." Albert Einstein was not speaking in terms of science when he said that. He asserts that having a personal identity separate from the whole of the universe is a delusion, which is precisely the definition of open individualism, and fits in the context of the son who died as meaning that his identity survives as the rest of the universe. Albert Einstein was a friend of physicist Erwin Schrödinger, also an open individualist, what adds weight to it. Albert Einstein mentions (paraphrasing) that striving to be an open individualism is the one issue of "true religion", in the sense of overcoming selfishness which this philosophical insight makes possible. No confirmation is possible about any of these people being explicitly "open individualists", as this term was first coined many years later; we can only deduct it from statements that those people made supporting these views. Einstein's quote is a prime example of such statements, as representative of open individualism as it could get. The article says "though similar ideas have been expressed by ..."; this is not merely a similar idea, it is the very same idea, and as good an evidence as those from the other people listed. Therefore his name can be included on the list. 186.213.157.98 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment -- The proper title format in WP is that only the first word is capitalized unless it is a proper noun. "-isms" and other theories are not proper nouns. If on the other hand we have a single person or very small group who are using some esoteric term that is a special "brand" in their usage then it probably does not belong on the WP as notable. So which is it? "Open individualism" a generic name describing an ism which is confirmed in some philosophical literature; or is it some special brand of movement with few adherents, and therefore not notable?Greg Bard 23:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Open individualism" is confirmed in philosophical literature and seems to be the correct form according to the naming conventions. JonatasM (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)