Nietzsche suggested that "the senses lie," meaning that the reality that we know first must filter through our five senses. Our senses translate the "world outside," and the reality we know is the reality that has passed through our senses ... not the reality as it exists in-itself. All reality is interpreted reality. We know that the electromagnetic spectrum extends beyond the visible light spectrum, yet if all we knew came from our senses alone, then microwaves, x-rays, and gamma rays (also part of the electromagnetic spectrum) would not exist. Our senses are limitations placed upon what is knowable. The senses lie in that they limit the common person's perception of reality.
Is there such a thing as individuality?
The reactive response to this question will most likely be a resounding "yes!" However, pause for a moment to consider what it means to be an individual. First, an "individual's" conception is brought about by the act of two people. The "individual" then receives nourishment and protection from his or her mother. Next the individual is born into a social world filled with parents, grandparents, cousins, aunts, and uncles. There is a culture that the individual will inherit -- that of his or her parents, and this culture will have its totems and taboos -- socially acceptable and socially inappropriate methods to conduct personal behavior and negotiate and govern present and future social interactions.
The "individual" will then enter the education system of his or her host culture and will learn to read in the language of the dominant culture. Ideas will be passed along to this individual -- ideas that the individual did not invent. Clothing, music, art, and poetry all serve as "personal" avenues of expression -- but the individual did not invent any of these avenues ... other people did. Despite this, the individual will find their personal expression through the artistic devices belonging to other people. The individual will achieve intellectual freedom on the shoulders of those who pioneered the articulation of thought.
Everything the "individual" has was made available by other people.
"There is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9Notions of love, freedom, and choice ... views on how one ought to live and how one ought to die, ... all that we know of the world ... our "personal" ideas bear the mark of the larger social context from which they came. There seems to be no such thing as a social-less individual.
While individuals have the potential to contribute back to the social framework, ... for the most part, I see individuals who have nothing more than a parasitic relationship with their social framework. Nietzsche called this the "herd." Heidegger called this the "they." Live is lived, proximally and for the most part, in inauthenticity.
"Tell me what to think about my love life, self-help book."
"Teach me about God, religion."
"Help me with my depression, therapist."
"Cure my loneliness, random person that'll sleep with."
"Give my life meaning, world."
8 comments:
This is a fascinating topic, Niteblade. When I've pondered this topic I tend to think of in the context of mereology and Gestalt psychology.
Now, I agree with Nietzsche partially about the senses and reality. What I think he's missing (and perhaps I misunderstood him) that the process of interpreting reality doesn't always end in just getting sense data. We can check what we think is the case against reality itself. For example, seeing a mirage would lead one to initially conclude that there's water there, but one can test this naive conclusion. Neurological psychology and other sciences like physics have made incredible strides by doing this.
On the subject of individuality, there is an interesting paradox concerning how individual people really are given a world full of replicating memes, indoctrination, propaganda, teaching, copying, imitation, etc.
There are some things in the normal functioning individual that, even given the above, are unique. One example is using your own judgement. This is something that I think we are all capable of regardless of the circumstances.
Even if somebody wants to be lazy and use another person's thinking, they still used their own judgement initially to determine that the person they wished to copy from had the correct judgement.
Like reality formation discussed earlier, this does not always lead people to the correct conclusions for whatever reasons, a person (and the philosopher) still has their own senses and their own judgement to help them determine their reality and their own individuality.
What do you think?
@Joey, regarding using one's own judgment ... When I consider this, and when I'm also playing devil's advocate, I think of an extreme Behaviorist. Through the act of conditioning and reinforcement and punishment, can we not manipulate the behavior of other people? And speaking of behavioral psychology, we cannot determine what's happening in someone's head -- as long as we see a behavior, then it doesn't matter what they were thinking. (Of course I'm saying this tongue in cheek.)
Nite, behaviorism with humans is a great example. While behaviorism is a powerful motivator for people, it merely influences their habits and some behaviors, but can it substitute someone else's judgement for their's? Or can we manipulate somebody when their judgement says otherwise? Here I'm not talking about things like conditioning people to be frightened of bunnies, for example. Such things are outside the control of judgements. Because even then the person may still use their own judgement. You haven't substituted their own judgement; just conditioned the way their brain reacts to certain stimuli.
Often times with conditioning you have to use something somebody judges to be a motivating factor when trying to change something else. We can then change the behavior, but not the fact that that person uses their own judgement throughout the whole process. You have use that person's judgement along the way in order to do this. Otherwise behaviorism could just find a method to directly replace their judgement with that of someone else.
"as long as we see a behavior, then it doesn't matter what they were thinking." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can totally divorce thinking from acting necessarily. In one sense you could say it doesn't matter that person was thinking B if they then went and did A. On the other hand thinking can determine their actions, and influencing such thinking can change a person's actions when that person eventually judges that to be worthy of changing their views, and then their actions.
I think this is where behaviorism stopped and cognitive behavioral therapy and other variants took over.
Perhaps I should write a blog entry about this somewhere to clarify this position.
While I'm working on that, what do you think about self-ownership in general? For me, this also separates one from the herd regardless of the circumstances.
Okay, here you go everyone reading this. This is my personal blog entry on the topic that is hot off the press. It's a long read, but I think it captures my thoughts on the subject. Let me know what you think, Nite. http://hyperblogging.tumblr.com/post/10539703838/on-using-your-own-judgement
Hello! Quite the blog you've got here! I had to run my head under cold water and put my thinking cap on just to be able to read it! My view is, there is a core reality that can not be changed, that is perceived differently from person to person. I see a light brown leaf, you see a tan one. It's still the same leaf and the same color type of idea. Excellent post!
@Dr. P. Poorluk, flattery will get you everywhere! :) Thanks for the compliments!
Post a Comment