How much do people affect your life, your behavior, your personal opinions, your relationships? More than you think. How much of being politically correct and socially correct and helpful and NICE is your ‘self’ and how much is the ‘other’? When you do a good deed, where do you throw it at? The cosmic balance and order of things? Who is judging your acts and why should you care?
In the realm of duty and being humane and self-righteous, is being neutral enough of an act as long as you do not commit harm? Do you do good so that you do not feel the shame? Let us talk about shame. Sartre elegantly describes the implications of the self and the other through the example of shame. He describes shame as a non-reflective entity or feeling since it involves the person and the observer. In this case, the other person in one’s consciousness becomes ‘the catalyst’ and a "mediator between myself and me". It makes sense thinking about social behavior which would only be considered vulgar in the presence of ‘others’. The extreme example of renouncing one self to the other, I think, is the masochist practices that occur in religion. Exemplified in the oriental philosophies, Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism, as well as in the old Catholic practices, the mutilation of one’s self provides an ecstatic mystical feeling. With this feeling of euphoria, one would argue that these practices are about the 'self' after all.
Within the paradox of self versus others, the human being or Sartre’s ‘existent’, irrespective of social implications and values, consisted of the ‘being’ and the ‘exterior’. I wonder the extent, to which, the exterior is affected by others and, consequently, the being. In Nietzsche’s ‘on self realization’, he conceptualizes the point of the quest from the ‘being’ to the ‘nothing’ as to realize one self and to achieve one's identity. Can we ever realize our self-truth and achieve our identities separately from others. Shame, in my opinion, should be within one self, so should happiness, self-gratification, doubt and confidence. On the path of self improvement and during the ‘quest’ how much of it is us and how much is the ‘other’. Should the belief that ‘the idea of eternal return is the heaviest of burdens’ be our incentive to aspire for our modern form of Nirvana? In Buddhism, as opposed to Hinduism, Karma is an ethical principle rather than cosmological explanation of the world and the state of Nirvana is about one’s self.
If it is in principle about one’s self then do people really matter? Who determines our vulnerability, our moral values and our emotional baggage? If people do not matter, then we are above insult and above shame. Who can cross the line if you are above the line? Let us ponder within ourselves and try narrowing the gap between what we want to appear as and what we truly are. After that, let us strip down to our raw selves with all the insecurities, the ugliness, the rage, and the fear. Today I look at me. This is me. This is what I have done and this is what I aspire to do. This is what I love and this is what I hate. This is why I cry and this is why I smile. This is whom I live for and this is whom I work for.
Tell me now, how much of this is just you and how much of it is the ‘other’?
11 comments:
you're right about the extra-self influences of our 'self'. but these influences are only a matter of perspective. I believe people matter very little, and you're right this makes me far from insult and shame. and you personally know that, and maybe this is why I come out insensitive or sometimes arrogant, which is why I am misunderstood in this respect.
Guilt however is a more important factor in my case and you left it out. Guilt should be felt, not shame, when people really matter, when poeple are important I mean.
As for karma, what can I say 'what goes around comes around...'
perspective? maybe. everything is about perspective. if you're not affected by external influences at all, all power to you. as for guilt, guilt is a higher form of humane feeling but is 100% about what we inflict on others and not about a resolution within ourselves so it doesn't apply as an example here.
and dear i don't think you're arrogant at all :)
oufff too many philosophers in one shot..LC is watching Life Aquatic and I'm trying to digest what you wrote..
kandinsky, i have that painting over my bed!
basically, it's your right to freely express yourself, and any shame/guilt should be originating from your 'self' or an other that you actually care about, whether it was a person, culture or a society. the rest can just go to hell. at least that's how i try to work when it comes to bettering myself.
guilt is all about inner self resolutions.. without it we'd stoop to a moral low one day after the other... shame however is all about how we 'look' to the outside, is about something that only affected our 'external' image, and doesn't entail inner moral dilemmas.
(so only insensitive, you mean?)
I agree with Ghassan. Guilt is all all about self, but only after a moral picture was defined, and was rooted in ourselves..a super-ego if you want.
Shame, is what we feel towards others.
I'm not sure when one stops, and the other starts, however.
If I lie, and get caught. What I feel is a combination of guilt, as I look at lying as immoral, and shame as I look at people's eyes.
mmmThat's an interesting thought. What if I don't get caught. Will I feel less "bad"? No shame? pure guilt?
Too much for a sunday evening!
hashem. that's exactly the point. if you don't get caught, you're not shamed by your actions? i doubt that. i'm more ashamed about shortcomings or bad deeds that i confess to myself regardless of others sometimes (so it might not be about image gus).
guilt is absolutely about others. it emanates from one's set of morals but it depends on the effect of your actions on others.
i agree with laila that when shame involves others, it mostly should revolve about people who matter.
LC is still there. layoul you're so lucky with this cousin. he's the sweetest!
First of all I think "self" is an ever evolving concept. You should never believe you are a constant definition, because by doing so you limit your own spiritual growth. I also believe that throughout the course of self evolution, one first goes through the phase where "others" are a major part of "self", because the time when one starts to finally look inside and establish an identity, the first step is to become aware of oneself away from social settings. I also doubt that one can ever achieve a state of self awareness where others don't influence it, because our self evolution comes from perspective that we get by reading, watching or discussing with others. I believe that others don't have much influence over who I am any more, but that's at least how I see myself. I would not be upset though if I discover that I'm mistaken one day, because my self gratification comes from the fact that I'm comfortable about analyzing myself, understanding my psyche, and working on ways to improve/change.
(and thanks for the nice words Mirvat)
Others are gifts or threats depending on the lenses you use to look at them. You see what you are.
LC, very wise words. our surrounding affects us in many ways more than we're even aware of. a big part of self-development is to have a space to incorporate others in the way we evaluate and view who we are and where we stand, in a positive way. we more you are independent from others' reflection on your mind and personnality, the more you've grown, that's true. dear LC, i already know for a fact that you're very wise for your age!
and it's true what i said. thanks for YOUR kind words.
moussa, nice to see you here. true what you say. threats? never thought of people as threatening..
Post a Comment