Aaaaactually (damn I'm such a cliche), I specialised in Buddhism for my degree (Religious Studies).
> anatta, which is often translated as “no self”
It might seem like a subtle point, but "not-self" and "non-self" are more accurate and widely-accepted translations in academic circles. The point being that Buddhism very much does accept that there is a conventional self, just with the one, mundane proviso that: you can't point to any _one part_ of our being or experience and say that that's the irreducible self.
Like Trigger's broom from the British comedy show, Only Fools And Horses:
"I've maintained this broom for 20 years, it's had 17 new heads and 14 new handles"
I am amused by the idea of presenting philosophical "terms of art" with obscure television skits dedicated to them. (i.e. Ship of Theseus is now Trigger's broom). Got any more in the bag?
Fry & Laurie had a sketch[0] that, behind the silliness and ridiculous characterization, sets out Ferdinand de Saussure’s distinction of langue versus parole that is the foundation of modern linguistics.
While "obscure" is probably a fair assessment for most of the world, in the UK and any serious consumers of British comedy, Trigger's Broom is one of the most famous scenes of Britain's favourite ever comedy, Only Fools and Horses, so its as famous and un-obscure as scenes come, in that context.
I remember watching it for the first time and thinking it was the cleverest joke I'd ever seen, until its ancient origin dawned on me. Then it seemed even cleverer.
That ‘triggers broom’ sketch and Del boy falling through the bar being ‘sophisticated’ was the height of comedy for me as kid. I suspect we are similar ages!
Milinda: I have spoken no untruth, reverend Sir. It is on account of its having all these things—the pole, and the axle, the wheels, and the framework, the ropes, the yoke, the spokes, and the goad—that it comes under the generally understood term, the designation in common use, of “chariot.”
Nagasena: Very good! Your Majesty has rightly grasped the meaning of “chariot.” And just even so it is on account of all those things you questioned me about—The thirty-two kinds of organic matter in a human body, and the five constituent elements of being—that I come under the generally understood term, the designation in common use, of “Nāgasena.” For it was said, Sire, by our Sister Vajirā in the presence of the Blessed One:
“Just as it is by the condition precedent
Of the co-existence of its various parts
That the word chariot is used,
Just so is it that when the Skandhas
Are there we talk of a being.”
Milinda: Most wonderful, Nāgasena, and most strange. Well has the puzzle put to you, most difficult though it was, been solved. Were the Buddha himself here he would approve your answer. Well done, well done, Nāgasena!
We only have a 'stable' reality due to memories and biological characteristics. If you minimized those, you'd have something more radical than the ship of Theseus because eventually it wouldn't even seem like the same ship. Someone can lose 'themself' permanently using drugs etc.
“Trigger’s broom” is an identifier not the physical thing itself. So it makes perfect sense for the physics to change while the identifier stays constant. The same way that the identifier of a mutable variable in a programming language never change; but its value might change all the time.
> you can't point to any _one part_ of our being or experience and say that that's the irreducible self.
This is why I find Buddhist reasoning superior to "Western" reasoning when the concept of the Self is the topic. There is no real model of the self, what it is at bedrock, in the Western tradition. Reason can't be applied to a non-model. Buddhism has a model. A good model can be improved and a bad model can be corrected. It's still better than no model.
I found Chandrakirti’s metaphor of the chariot helpful:
"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts"
You might have a very narrow view of the Western tradition, then. There is plenty of discussion of the nature of "self" and there are plenty of models.
I personally agree with Trigger that there's a legitimate sense in which he still has the same broom after 20 years. Though I also accept why somebody would say it's not the same broom. The problem for that person though is: at what point does it become a new broom? What is that fundamental (irreducible) part of the broom, that once changed, makes it a new broom?
> anatta, which is often translated as “no self”
It might seem like a subtle point, but "not-self" and "non-self" are more accurate and widely-accepted translations in academic circles. The point being that Buddhism very much does accept that there is a conventional self, just with the one, mundane proviso that: you can't point to any _one part_ of our being or experience and say that that's the irreducible self.
Like Trigger's broom from the British comedy show, Only Fools And Horses:
"I've maintained this broom for 20 years, it's had 17 new heads and 14 new handles"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqZEr1Y-lZU