Summary: "I" versus "Me" philosophical differences

Arthur C. Brooks contrasts "I" (the observing self) with "me" (the self defined by others' perceptions), arguing that most people are "all me and no I," and that cultivating the observing "I" (Atman) lets you live less attached to social comparison and more freely.

Why it matters

Being dominated by "me" ties your self-worth to comparisons, which fuels envy and the hedonic treadmill.

Cultivating the "I" supports outward-facing observation, reduces attachment, and aligns with spiritual traditions (Hindu Atman, Buddhist emptiness) that Brooks and Sam discuss as paths to less suffering.

Practical implication Brooks suggests

Work to observe your reactions rather than identify with them; wear self-concepts lightly so they don't determine your moment-to-moment experience.

Transcript:

Sam Harris

I mean, you need to be able to say the appropriate and civil things on cue. You want to know how to dress for dinner, but to wear whatever self-concept you have as lightly as possible so that it really is just not the place from which you're relating to the next Moment of experience, that's what seems optimal to me. Is there any way in which that you disagree with that?

Arthur C. Brooks

No, there's no way that I disagree with that. I think that's exactly right but i also will will point out that that is not that is not human nature and and that brings me to my sort of overarching point which is that mother nature doesn't Care if you're happy mother nature has other goals for you and And the great crossing of circuits in the human mind, as far as I'm concerned, is that we want to be happy and we have urges For money and power and pleasure and fame. And the only way that we're going to know if we're successful along those dimensions is by comparing ourselves to other people. And we have brains, by the way. You can oxygenate your ventral striatum as well by having favorable social comparison as you can by taking methamphetamine. And you can get that, and it's a real reward, and people will be stuck on it, but it will not bring you ultimate happiness. Because happiness is not something on which we're sorting. Mother nature is not actually giving us this imperative, this evolutionary imperative. That's the important thing to keep in mind. And I think that that is entirely consistent with Buddhist teaching, also with Christian teaching. Best way to live your life. It's actually a foolish way to live your life. And that you need to be in charge. You can't let your feelings manage you. You should work to manage yourself and to manage your feelings. And, you know, there's interesting because other traditions look at it in a slightly different way. One that I find especially useful is, you know, the Hindus, they talk about Atman, which is the best way to think about it is in English, in the Western tradition, is that there's a difference Between I and me. So I am an observer of the world. Me is an understanding of myself reflected through what Sam Harris thinks of me right now. And most people are all me and no I. Atman is the ultimate I. And the Hindus believe that only Atman can be in communion with Brahman, which is the godhead. You can only really have a full communion with the universality of the true nature of things when you're just observing as opposed to understanding yourself in the reflection of what Everybody else thinks. And boy, oh boy, I mean, that's the reason that people say that, for example, Zen Buddhism isn't a philosophy or let alone a religion. It's an attitude. It's I-ness. It's outward-facing observation of the world.

Making Sense with Sam Harris • #291 — Where Is Happiness?