|
|
|
|
|
by smhost
2784 days ago
|
|
i ultimately agree with your politics, but i don't think it's a matter of simply deciding to be somehow self-contained. you can decide to give yourself whatever meaning you want about yourself, but so long as society doesn't recognize your meaning and see you as you see yourself, that meaning has no meaning outside yourself. and there's also another problem with denouncing the other, which is that you close them off to the possibility of realizing themselves through you, and so they can never be a part of whatever society you decide to create for yourself. |
|
Neither I nor Gruen said anything like that. I read the comment I responded to as claiming it's all from the outside, all from society, and I simply ask what IS society, when they all just get it from the outside. And I say there's not just the outside -- and the only way that can get heard is as me claiming "there's only the inside"? That's frustrating. It may may be "politics" to others, but to me it's simply a question of awareness, and Socrates-style question that are intended to be answered, not to make a point first and foremost..
You said making your own decisions "comes later", which as I pointed out doesn't fit the comment I replied to, since that was also talking about getting your meaning from others as an adult, e.g. falling in love. Also, Gruen and others mention the individuality of infants being suppressed -- so is there something to suppress, or does that "come later"?
What's the youngest age a human can approach or retract from a stimulus? I'd say then at the latest it becomes a two-way street, but it's probably one from the first cell division. If anything, that's what I'm arguing.
> so long as society doesn't recognize your meaning and see you as you see yourself, that meaning has no meaning outside yourself.
"Society" cannot do that anyway, since it's not an individual human being. We can use society as a shorthand for actually existing humans, but "society" as such is an abstraction, it doesn't really act or think or feel or understand or mean anything, like any group.
And yes, the meaning we have in life is for us only, but how is that a problem? What's the alternative? A "common" delusion, or people saying the same words as if that makes them the same inside?
> there's also another problem with denouncing the other, which is that you close them off to the possibility of realizing themselves through you, and so they can never be a part of whatever society you decide to create for yourself.
There's a poem I like, but I don't quite remember it, something about being "alone like a tree, and brotherly like a forest". I think true friendship, love, and/or a society of adult citizens, "achieves its full flower" with individuals who stand on firm inner ground, so to speak.
The closest two eggs can get is when their shells touch -- if you make omelette, they're no longer eggs in that sense, and to me that's not two eggs coming really close, but two eggs disappearing and being replaced by something that's less than each of them.