Comprehension of Oneself and Connection to the Life - Essay Example

Understanding the self, its relation to the world, and what the self should do Name Instructor’s name Name of institution Subject Number of words Date Understanding the self, its relation to the world, and what the self should do Questions of how to account for the self, its relation to the world, and what the self should do have been a central preoccupation of philosophers and theorist at least since the forth century BC (Ancient Greece). In an attempt to address the issues raised in the statement above this assay will give a detailed account of the opposing view followed by its critical analysis. As part of the main body the essay will therefore have detailed facts on the view that receiving my full support just before the conclusion. The essay starts off with a detailed account of Karl Marx’s and Jean-Paul Sartre’s views on the self and this will be followed by a detailed analysis of the two writers’ views on the self. Views self construction and social construction as expressed by both writers will also be addressed in the analysis alongside medieval and modern arguments geared towards understanding the self and how the self should act. Finally the essay will have a conclusion asserting my position in the entire argument and a summary of major key areas of the discussion. In modern day man can restructure his identity with changing times however the choices are still confined to a pre-determined list of options because medieval traditions do not easily allow movement across social strata. For instance Friedman argues that man has room for making choices however the society is rigid and may not readily accept such choices and that the forces controlling man are divine and beyond his reach[Mil99]. In addition, Regenia Gagnier argue that man is trapped between self-construction which define human beings at the personal level and social construction defining man as a member of bigger group[Gag91]. Similarly, Rene Descartes [Jos02] notes that man’s perspective is prone to error and will always struggle to understand his personality however; subjectivity would allow man to find more about his identity. Human beings have for a long time struggled to understand their identity for instance in the medieval era man was condemned to a specific class and the society did not permit vertical migration. Plato advocated for rule by reason referring to submitting to preordained truths divine decrees therefore we should perform our roles as stated by societal norms without complain even though they may be discriminating. The effects of attempting to defy the norm in the medieval era are fatal for instance Creon’s unethical decree caused unprecedented results the same case applies Luther asserting that access to the scripture triggered splitting in the church as people were free to give follow their however it was after a great struggle[Lut10][Cha89]. On the other hand, Karl Marx’s contribution in political science and sociology is equally important to mention if we are to understand the self. To start with his contribution in developing communism ideologies gladly embraced different nations before and after the world wars left a memorable mark. Marx argues that the self could only be understood from mans relationship with others and not the individual human because the influence of the society supersedes that of the individual. In addition, Marx asserts that concerted effort in the name of group revolution is the key to freedom and self realization. Therefore an individual can only realize his/her self by examining his/her role in the society. Man should therefore act according to the needs of the society for the benefit of everyone however; though Marx views humans as social being he does not condone the fact that we should use fellow men as am means to achieve our desired objective and that man should rip the fruits of their labor[Loy97]. Similarly, Sartre is among the post-modernist writers and his contribution towards the topic of discussion cannot be ignored. To start with, Sartre played a major role in popularizing existentialism. In his argument asserts that one’s actions are vital in determining his/her character. He asserts that our views cannot adequately makes up for our character the same case to our words. Sartre notes that man is absolutely free to think and act at will because the self thrives only as intelligence/mind fully aware of things. According to Jean human without action cannot be defined he compares them to nothing until they act. It is in this note that Sartre supports rebellion against the bourgeois and their oppressive culture however his argument reveal that resistance to oppression and restrictions in vertical migration in the strata should not be pegged on the societal aid. Therefore individuals should embrace free thinking and self determination towards self actualization virtues not endowed to animals[Phi73]. Modernity embraces character traits such as bravery and for this reason individualistic effort in discovering one’s self and how it should act is important. Therefore rising to challenge pre-ordained, static and conservatism individually should be the fist step however after such an attempt concerted efforts strengthens the individual bringing about changes. According to Sigmund Freud in [Sig86], understanding the self involves studying man’s mental life. He argues that all men have mental experiences that can be analyzed to understand their behaviors by examining mental organizations. The mental organizations are categorized into two agencies, on one hand there is the ego referred to as ‘I’ and on the other hand we have the id referred to as ‘it’. According to Freud, the egos comprise of the external layer of the other agency and it is the agency that fully interacts with the external environment/reality. In his arguments Freud states that all mental acts are conscious however the complex nature of mental actions allows the brain to sneak in some acts into the subconscious without knowledge of our conscious. Beneath the ego lies the id and should always be kept at bay by the ego because of its animalistic nature. According to him the forces driving our mental apparatus are produced in the id and manifest as somatic needs namely hunger and love. As a result the id demand for immediate satisfaction under any circumstance however the ego swings into action to prevent unpleasant situations. In so doing a compromise is reached and either by postponing the desire or finding an alternative and morally acceptable solution. This will lead to mental action being registered for future reference forming the character of the individual. On the other hand Sigmund assert that in the early stages of development the ego is weak and certain situations might inhibit its ability to mediate conflicts between the id and the external environment. In such cases the ego might opt for repression an inefficient instrument in mediation that would in future proof had to eliminate thus resulting a disorder whereby the id takes control at will resulting unethical actions[Sig86]. Individuals develop their identity by interacting with the external environment and adjusting internal environment therefore they can discover and shape their identity individually or accept the influence of the society into their lives. However Taylor argues that modernity emanates from replacing dominance by reason with what is more close to the mind[Cha89]. Thus individuals should develop through both the self construction and social construction because the two play an important role in determining the self. References Mil99: , (Friedman, 1999), Gag91: , (Regenia, 1991), Jos02: , (What am i the mind-body problem ), Lut10: , (Warring, 1910), Cha89: , (Taylor, 1989), Loy97: , (Loyd David Easton, 1997), Phi73: , (Mariet, 1973), Sig86: , (The essentials of pyscho-analysis ), Sig86: , (Freud, 1986), Read More