to what extent the self is determined by external factors? Flashcards
Intro:
’ In answering this I will look through the positions of Kant, Locke, and Sartre- my own position will be that the self is best understood as something socially determined, using Sartre through Lacan.
Kant (paragraph 1)
Self - metaphysical –> Non-Physical BUT inalienable part of the self
According to Kant, when we experience the world around us, we are not experiencing it directly or “as it is.” Instead, our minds have to process the information we receive through our senses and make sense of it. This means that there must be some kind of mental framework or structure in place that allows us to do this processing.
Kant calls this framework the “transcendental ego,” and he believes that it exists prior to our physical existence. This means that it is not something that we learn or acquire over time, but rather something that is inherent to our nature as human beings.
The transcendental ego is responsible for regulating our experiences and making sense of them. It allows us to organize the information we receive and create a coherent picture of the world around us. This makes it the center of our individual phenomenology, which is the study of how we experience the world.
According to Kant, the transcendental ego is entirely separate from others and from our physical selves. It is not something that we can observe or study directly, but rather something that is inferred from the way we experience the world
Criticisms of Kant
Kant assumes that the apparatus needed for initial sense perception would be metaphysical- when it seems entirely reasonable that such things could be the products of millennia of evolution.
Indeed to claim a consistent sense perception system for all of humanity, dating back to the dawn of “man”, would be incredible.
Therefore it seems much more likely that these generations of evolution have curated our sense perception and comprehension, as the very fact that there exists a distinction between us and early man would surely point against the idea of a core transcendental ego.
Indeed, if one is to accept evolution, the idea of anything being truly transcendental about current man becomes a largely untenable position.
Furthermore Kant puts an overreliance on things as innate faculties when as far as can be seen they seem to be gradual growths.
- Example a baby- no one would assume that this baby’s ability to sense nor understand phenomena would be consistent throughout their life, indeed as a baby they existed tremendously limited in such a faculty.
Therefore I believe it seems a much more likely interpretation that their method of understanding phenomena and thus their self was something which was developed and honed throughout their life, instead of some permanent essence to which they are born with.
Locke
Having ultimately ended on an idea of a constructed self I will now pick up on the theories of John Locke and his compound self- an entity entirely developed through an individual’s own experience.
Locke disregarded any metaphysical approach and instead said, in its simplest form, the self exists as the collation of all of an individuals lived experience.
Thus while one may not always be conscious of their existence, all moments of their existence contribute to their consciousness.
Perspectives on Locke:
Locke believed that people can understand themselves by reflecting on their own experiences, even if they live completely alone.
However, this ignores the fact that in today’s world, we cannot completely separate ourselves from the influence of others.
We are always aware of how others might see us, even if we are not consciously thinking about it.
For example, even though the child in the cemetery was not being directly observed, they still acted in a way that was appropriate for the sombre atmosphere of the cemetery, as if they were being watched.
This means that we need to understand how others perceive us in order to understand ourselves.
