Anti-Reflexivity Principle

[Holder of the Heel]

This isn't so much a debate (though in potential it could be) as opposed to a question/challenge, for I have been reading through a Buddhism as Philosophy textbook, and it introduced to me the namesake of this thread. It interested me, and yet although I couldn't immediately give examples, I wasn't so sure of the validity. It goes as follows: Nothing can ever operate upon itself, or in other words, perform its activity upon itself.

Some examples in the book were raised as possible challenges to the statement such as a doctor who performs minor surgery on herself, though it was questionable because although he/she causes the healing process, it isn't her treating herself that solves it, but her body which she allows. Another example was a light that lights itself, although this confuses me, for no light can literally light up light, and light lighting up the tool that allows for the light wouldn't be light acting upon light. As for examples, no more were given, and I have none to offer at the moment, for I am thinking it is impossible, but I'd like to make sure that this principle isn't wrong before I assume it. Though, personally, it even in ways doesn't make so much sense, but I thought it'd be worth posting anyhow.

 

[rvkevin]

What about the function f(f(x))?

 

[Theftz22]

As a logical principle it obviously fails, for instance universal statements apply universally (hence the name) and thus even to themselves. So for instance the universal "there are no true universals" acts upon itself to refute itself.

But its empirically demonstrably false as well. I can hit myself. I can develop an automated clasp whose two parts clamp themselves together. I could go on but you can see its an obviously false principle.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

If you punch yourself, it is your fist hitting your body, not your fist upon your fist. As for the clamps, the clamps don't clamp upon itself, only onto the other end (or clamping whatever is inside)?

As for universals, they don't operate, I never said anything like that. I'm talking about things acting upon things.

 

[ElvenKing]

This sounds like it is referring to that, if the presence a particular phenomena is the result of two phenomena are connected to each, one has to describe two separated phenomena which the come together to create the presence of the resulting phenomena.

To use the example of person's first hitting oneself(in other words: one's body), for the meaning my first hitting my body to be present, it is a requirement that my fist be understood as an independently existing object from the rest of my body, as I am referring to one particular part of my body hitting any other part that makes up the rest to describe the phenomena of my fist hitting myself.

If I didn't distinguish between my fist from the rest of my body, it would be impossible to perceive that I was hitting myself because there would simply be the experience of perceiving hitting, as there is no myself(my fist) to do the hitting of myself(where on my body the first makes impact).

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well said ElvenKing. :D In other words, it basically states something can't be the agent of an action and the object of that same action.

 

[Theftz22]

What about quantum fluctuations? Presumably the quantum vacuum is both the agent and the object of that action.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

May you explain this? I'm not particularly knowing in that area.