by Sophie Villasfer
14 August 2012
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, The Mystery of Being
Right after children learn writing isolated letters, they learn to write their names. From there, sentence structures usually revolve around the self as encouraged by the teachers. "I am (insert full name here). I live in (insert full address here). I am (age) years old. I (insert hobby)..." And so on and so forth. From there, we are taught more challenging topics -- those that go more and more beyond ourselves. We start writing about our families, friends, events, and even the imaginary. However, most of the time, this progress is just limited to scholastic write-ups. Many become adults but are still stuck with the basic sentences that begin with "I", strung one after another. These are not literal essays of course, but more like scripted identities carried around (almost like resumes at hand, prepared for those who might be interested).
During the lecture last Tuesday, I agree that "it is a dangerous attitude to think of yourself as a totally self-made person." Society is littered with accolades and articles for the "successful", and descriptions as to how they became the way they are. Some of these have the rags-to-riches theme that credit success to some formula. Some have the more Disney-like themes wherein people are born to these certain families and instantly it is seen how their lives will surely end happily ever after. One does not need to look far, just grab a magazine or look at the featured stories in the Yahoo homepage. Disclaimer: I am not against these people, okay? However, I am against how writers oversimplify their subjects.
In the book of Malcolm Gladwell entitled "Outliers", he describes how successful people like Bill Gates or the Beatles were not successful overnight; they did only after practicing their trade for 10,000 hours. While this principle of hard work makes sense, Gladwell also describes how other than hard work, these people were born of a certain time that favors their interests. These people were born to a time of opportunity. Or it could be something more subtle, like how entering school or Little League (American Baseball) at a certain age can give someone an edge. On the other hand, someone can have all the talent and the genes, but no opportunity.
In other words, the "I" that was born into the world can have many different fates, but why that particular historical era, family, or environment? Thinking about this, I realized that such questions does not end during birth. Fortunes and misfortunes add up, but most of the time when life is observed in retrospect, there is this arc of grace. It can be as small as studying only partially for a test, but the test was either cancelled or for some reason, only the things you studied appeared. Or better, it can be as beautiful as falling in love with a particular person who also falls in love with you. When we are honest with ourselves, our lives are more than what we made it to be. Most of the time what we do is so small compared to how life is unfolding in front of us. It is difficult to comprehend, difficult to articulate, difficult to see. But it is still a concrete reality; if we had enough motivation, maybe we can even do the math and prove how reality is greater than the sum of its parts.
Behind the "I" are people along the way who shaped him mostly by helping him either materially (or financially) and even spiritually. These can be sincere friends who are also good influences, or that aunt who lent (or gave) you money even when you did not ask. Behind the "I" are many circumstances, that seem to be connected that sometimes one suspects, is there Somebody orchestrating all of this? Behind the "I" that is present, is a wealth of opportunity and resources. Behind the "I" is a long list of answered prayers, and surprising blessings. And also, behind the "I" is someone is vulnerable enough to be hurt by others or by events. But behind that same "I" is at least one other person who understands.
Pardon me if this essay is not as fluid as it should be. The main point I really want to make is that there should be a certain wariness to oversimplifying how we look at other people, but more than that, there should be a certain wariness as to how we look at ourselves. Maybe it helps to start looking at the self in the proper context, in order to hopefully avoid the delusion that "the world revolves around me". Because the world does not revolve around you, or me, or him, or her. The world revolves as it does, and we are all together in it.
The instant I read "it is a dangerous attitude to think of yourself as a totally self made person" I immediately thought that you were into behaviorist psychology haha. I mean, throughout the lecture, I kept on recalling different terms and concepts we used in our developmental/personality classes.
ReplyDeleteAside from that, the paragraph you wrote that talks about "I", do you think that it has anything to do with Apple products naming their inventions things like iPod or iPad? Sorry if it's really out there haha.
-Karl Rojas Ph101 A
Hi Karl! You might wanna read this, from the Department - http://admuphilo.blogspot.com/2011/12/notes-from-end-of-life-as-we-know-it-12.html
DeleteHey Karl, yea maybe Apple products always had an "i" because the programs they're selling are ultimately about the self. The blog link posted by Sir Earl does talk more about this especially when it says "We are i-pods... how can we delicately respond if we are I pods—self contained, self-involved pods who interphase with each other in ways determined by enframing systems?" It's a pretty interesting read :D
DeleteReading your thoughts reminded me of an essay I read years ago by a Chinese writer based in the US. Forgive me for being unable to recall his name or the title of his piece; his experience however I've kept in mind ever since.
ReplyDelete(Disclaimer: I don't wish to impose my understanding of any culture. I'd just like to propose a possible relevance to the topic at hand. :) )
As I had mentioned, the writer was a Chinese man who took up his university years in the States. His essay centers on his English class in freshman year when he had difficulty expressing himself through the pronoun "I". As unusual this may seem to most of us with an unquestionable affinity towards "I", it was a cultural thing for him.
As a Communist state, the People's Republic of China fosters the values embedded in "We" rather than in "I". "We" is communal, inclusive, and founded in Chinese tradition, whereas "I" is individualistic, exclusive, and Western. The writer then, a cultural stranger to the Western paradigm, could not bring himself to write in singularity, to reflect himself and only himself. He struggled on to find his individuality by asking himself "who am I?" instead of "who are we?".
However one can easily argue that in the writer's culture the "We" is equivalent to the "I" in all but quantity. Therefore his individuality in the "I" cannot be fully removed from the communion of I's in "We". Although he may differ from his people in character or interest, his identity is largely identified with theirs as a community. What I mean to say is that perhaps in his nationalist tradition the "I" is but an imperfect fragment of the "We" and that the significance embedded in the plurality of I's is more encompassing than the single I itself. Perhaps it is a way for one person to express him/herself as an accumulation of others. An individual is never self-made--Behind the "I" are people along the way...
Hi Justine! I like your concrete example on how the I always exists with others. However, perhaps communism's idea of "We" as equivalent to "I" can be too extreme because while they acknowledge the sense of community, they deny the reality of an individual who has unique qualities. But then again, it also has a lot to do with culture -- what is extreme for one is another's status quo. Thank you for sharing a different way on how to view the idea of "We" in communism, that "We" is where the sense of "I" returns to. :)
DeleteI like how you said that from a young age we were taught all about the pronoun "I" that it sort of became already natural to us as we grow older. The other day while I was browsing a magazine there was an article where it talks about the latest products or cosmetic surgery procedures that would make a lot of people thinner or more attractive. What amazes me is how people would actually pay huge amount of money just to achieve this.I was really surprise on how far these people would go just to attain this "perfection". I guess this is sort of connected on the fact that a lot of people do value "I" so much that instead of working hard to achieve their goals in life many would prefer to take the easy way out.
ReplyDeleteKatrina- Anne Balonan
Philo 101 A
When I read this entry, I thought of Dr. Garcia's prayer that goes "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main.."
ReplyDeleteThere are always people behind us who are the reasons why we are who we are today. It won't always be the "I" because like the human body, we need more than one part to function. Like how they say "behind every successful man is a great woman". And there's the idea of the "self-made man" - a man who becomes successful by his own work and not through inheritance. Instead of focusing on the self, why can't the term acknowledge the people who helped him become successful? This shows that there are so many under-appreciated people who are overshadowed by those who they helped to shine.
And about that point on oversimplifying things, I think that people nowadays focus on the summary rather than going over the smallest details. Small doesn't mean insignificant.
Oh, Sophie. It was a pleasure to read this when it first got uploaded online, and it's still a pleasure to read it now. :) Blog more. :D
ReplyDelete