When I think of an "absolute individual" I think of someone who has yet to be tainted by the world we live in. "Each of us is trapped within our own mind, unable to feel anything but our own feelings and experiences. It is as if each of us is trapped in a dark room with no windows." Not necessarily a naive person, but one who has not really experienced much, nor has had others shape their thoughts and views. Everything they think is because they thought it, not because someone else did. I still am trying to figure out if there really is such a thing called an "absolute individual", and if so, where can I find one? According to David Banach to be an "absolute individual" one basically has to live under a rock without any real human contact. I feel as though it is more likely to find people who claim to be individuals but really they are not. To be a true individual you have to have had absolutely nothing anyone has ever said to you change your mind about something. "Thus, to be an absolute individual is to be trapped within ourselves, unable to perceive or contact anything but the images on our mental TV screen, and to be imperceptible ourselves to anyone outside of us." While I don't think that there is such a thing as an "absolute individual" I think there is a difference from someone who can speak their mind or not be afraid to think about what they do from sheep that follows everything everyone else says. We can call those moderate individuals. there are probably at least double the amount of moderate individuals than there are "absolute individuals" that is if there are any at all. It is to be an island of subjectivity in an otherwise objective world."
I've been really stuck thinking about the concept of "No one else can feel what we feel, and we cannot feel what is going on in any one else's mind." I have never really thought of this before, but now that I have read it, I can't seem to get it out of my head. What has always been one of my pet peeves is when you are venting to another or sharing what troubles you or even what has occurred in your life, and the person you are confiding in says to you "I understand." Upon hearing that unless you have been through the exact same situation as I, immediately I get irked. I always want to respond with a do you really understand? You've never been in my situation so how could you possibly understand? Even if you have, the way everyone deals with their emotions or thoughts are different so what might make me really sad may not phase someone else. That leads me to believe that as humans we are all so close and yet so far away.
"Only we feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes, and our fears immediately, subjectively, from the inside. Other people only see us from the outside, objectively, and, hard as we may try, we can only see them from the outside" There is a lot of truth in this statement. So much truth that it is a little disconcerting to me. From experience, trying to make your feelings into something tangible, weather it be written down or spoken words is very difficult. Often times you either over express and make what you feel too extreme or you barely scratch the surface and don't fully verbalize what you are feeling. I think however the human mind is capable of trying to empathize, so while you can never really feel exactly what another person is feeling, you can try to translate it into your own head so it can make sense to you and only after that you can sincerely empathize.
Another idea that always has been in my mind is the thought of perception. "Actually, when you think of it, the only thing we ever perceive immediately and directly is ourselves and the images and experiences in our mind. When we look at another person or object, we don't see it directly as it is; we see it only as it is represented in our own experience." In class you (being Mr. Manley) mentioned something about color and every one's own interpretation of color. How do I know that what I see is the same as what everyone else sees. For example when one looks in the mirror at themselves what you see of yourself is most likely not what everyone else sees. You can pick out little thing about yourself that you think is so flawed or entirely too noticeable when in actuality no one notices it but you. That may just be paranoia or lack of confidence but it still alters you perception of yourself. Also, when one eats they could be eating what may be the most delicious thing in the world to them may be the most repulsive thing in the world to someone else. Everyone is different and that aspect of the human race really creates distance between one another.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with what you are saying, I personally don’t think there is such a thing as the “absolute individual,” everyone at some point is influenced to some extent by the opinions of others. I like the concept of the “moderate individual,” clearly that is ideal more realistic than “absolute individual” since it’s easier for people to be somewhat individual rather than completely individual. Also your ideas about the concept of "No one else can feel what we feel, and we cannot feel what is going on in any one else's mind.” Your ideas make a lot of sense, it really is impossible to really know what other’s are feeling and no one will ever know exactly how you feel about certain things. No one’s feelings are exactly the same. Another good point you made was the fact that what we only perceive things as we see them and the way on person perceives something could look completely different to another.
ReplyDeleteDude! My head is reeling! This was super well thought out. I really like how you were just ranting but you built off of what you were saying. Like you thought something and was like "Oh wow! I just realized something else!" I love how you sounded like you were actually wanted to discuss this topic instead of it sounding like you were only doing this for a grade. It made it that much more interesting.
ReplyDeleteSome of your main points consisted of whether or not you believed in an "absolute individiual" and how each of us are alone in this world.
This reminds me of Banach's other idea of a "mental TV screen" that portrays how others view you as well as how you see other people. He was saying that each of us in trapped in our own mind and "our only access to the world being a television screen on one wall on which we percieve the images of other people..." which connects to when you said "For example when one looks in the mirror at themselves what you see of yourself is most likely not what everyone else sees. You can pick out little thing about yourself that you think is so flawed or entirely too noticeable when in actuality no one notices it but you."
I'm trying to figure out how you can develop more and I'm drawing a blank. I'd say just continue what you're doing now.
This post really made me think about the idea of a "moderate individual" because when I first read Banach's lecture, my immediate thoughts were "I don't believe in an absolute individual and that's final". I never actually thought of there being a middle ground. I really like the idea:"While I don't think that there is such a thing as an "absolute individual" I think there is a difference from someone who can speak their mind or not be afraid to think about what they do from sheep that follows everything everyone else says. We can call those moderate individuals." It brought a whole new perspective on Banach's theory that I hadn't thought about before.
So, to wrap up this "novel" (haha) this post was just, "wow". So, I hope to hear more things like this. Bye, bye.