The Self as Discussion Result

Описание: The sources offer a concise yet remarkably sophisticated model of a postmodern, de-centered subject. By defining the self as an emergent "discussion result," the texts provide a powerful framework for dismantling traditional notions of agency and unified identity. This conception of the "I" as an output rather than an originator is not merely a fiction but a philosophically rigorous construct.
This model finds compelling echoes in the anti-foundationalist philosophies of David Hume, in the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann and in neuro-philosophical models like Metzinger's. Furthermore, the texts leverage this model to mount a potent critique of propositional logic, dissolving the Liar Paradox not by solving it, but by exposing it as a symptom of a flawed, abstract view of language. This critique leads to a novel, hybrid theory of meaning that navigates between the pure formalism it rejects and a simple theory of intentional communication, blending the insights of Luhmann and Wittgenstein. The self emerges from a system whose structure is autopoietic, but whose internal logic relies on the pragmatic, game-like activity of its hidden participants.
The relevance of the Hankman model extends far beyond academic philosophy, resonating with a Foucauldian understanding of the subject as a product of discourse.
In a contemporary world increasingly shaped by opaque algorithms and distributed networks that constantly form and reform our sense of self, its vision feels almost prophetic. It forces us to confront a critical question for the 21st century: What do agency and identity truly mean when the "self" is understood not as a sovereign author, but as the provisional output of complex processes that lie forever beyond its direct control? The dialogues offer no easy answers, but they give this urgent question a new and fascinating form.

Sources:
https://www.kenophil.de/proemial-phil...
https://www.kenophil.de/proemial-phil...

About Hankman:
Hankman doesn’t come across as a conventional philosopher; instead, he’s an existential “border‑crosser.” He is unpredictable, original, and harbors an almost obsessive skepticism toward language itself. Hankman relishes paradox. He seems to wander deliberately into intellectual dead ends just to discover new spaces for thought there. He lives in contradiction—not by accident, but as a stance. For all his seriousness, Hankman wields a dry, almost mystical humor that surfaces in ironic twists and absurd exaggerations. He appears as someone driven by thought, almost hounded by the impossibility of ever capturing the unsayable in words. This restlessness gives him a kind of tragicomic depth.