Some thoughts on "Being oneself"
Soren Kierkegaard is saying, that "the deepest form of despair is TO BE ANOTHER THAN HIMSELF" on the other hand "to will to be that self, which one truly is indeed the opposite of despair" and Carl Rogers adds: "and this choice is the deepest responsibility of man"...
But what it means to be one self? And how would the others accept it?
Already in pedagogic throughout the history there were always two opposite trends:
Of course both with bigger or smaller variations.
It is similar to what Rogers says about politics:
"The basic struggle in politics is between those who think people should be free to control their own destiny, and those who think everyone should be controlled."
And it is also always a tension between what one is and what he/she should be.
But how to overcome this contrariety? How to make dialectical synthesis?
What do we need to transcend this?
We can observe also the difference between higher and lower social classes. It is and it has always been the value of higher or ruling classes to be autonomous, free, individual, deciding...
And on the other hand, there was always tendency to impose collectivistic values to exploited lower classes. But I do not mean that in a kind of socialistic sense, because a communistic system was itself exploative system it imposed collectivistic and even conformistic behavior in spite of declarative values, which were quite the opposite, but I do not want to go into the contradictions of socialism now...
I would like to discover how to overcome the contrariety between individualistic and collectivistic approach.
One possibility is offered from John Dewey and his pragmatism. It sure is a kind of compromise, but I believe, there is a better solution...
Two essential needs of human being
On one hand there is need to be free and on the other hand there is a need to belong…
Both are very important even essential…but how to fulfill both of them if it seems that in order to belong one must cease to be himself or in order to be himself one must give up hope to belong…?
Of course one does not wish to be left totally alone, unless he lives in extreme circumstances, because when left totally alone, one would not possibly be able to fulfill his need to belong…
But the question is: is it really necessary to sacrifice ones self in order to be acceptable in order to belong? Isn’t it perhaps possible, that we would be fully what we are and at the same time fully belong to community?
On liberalism, collectivism and the third possibility
I strongly agree, that "liberalistic individualistic idea of atomistic individuals choosing between plurality of possibilities in the middle of nothing" is very shallow and that not all choices are equally worth choosing, but i am not talking about "atomistic individuals" nor about "choosing between plurality of possibilities" i was talking about developing oneself to a mature, balanced, creative, protagonistic,...person. Somewhat in a sense of classical ideal of person or also in a sense like Rogers describes a “fully functioning person”, or as Fromm talks about healthy person in healthy society – “creative person”.
And on the other hand about utilitaristic idea of educating a person to be a useful part of society or collectivistic idea of subordinating individual to majority which are in my opinion similar in a sense, that a person is not a purpose but only means for something else. In both cases individual is sacrificed.
The means for doing this is can be violence, manipulation, education…or something else.
But if the individual would not regard others we would soon be in society which Hobbs describes with “homo homini lupus” a world of egoists and/or narcissists. But this is far from idea of “fully functioning person” or a “creative person”, because person is also participating in true relationships, which are based on trust, concern, respect,…Fromm describes his idea of LOVE as a mode of true relationship, but TO LOVE, one first has TO BE. So one has to have freedom first in order to be able to love and to be creative and contributing part of community.
In short I am saying that not only egoism and altruism are alternatives in sense “tercium non datum”, but there exists the third possibility, that transcends both of them, is not only dialectical synthesis of the two, but is a new, higher mode of being…
But the problem stays: “What is it? How does it look like? Or how it feels? What taste does it have? How does it sound?….And how to achieve or at least develop it or towards it?
I strongly believe that it is possible and I see the as task (duty and privilege) of every human being to search for it…