Sartre created the idea of the "Other" to construct reflective consciousness. What if when everyone was born, they were born with someone who was completely the opposite of them in both looks and thought. Lets say you are a quiet, conservative, and well mannered, and your opposite would be.. well, the opposite of that. Oh and did I mention you both share the same body, as two heads? Your opinion would always be questioned by your other and you would always be witness to the other side of a perspective. Would this broaden your perception against biases and objectiveness against certain subjects? Would we become a more understanding person, more able to percieve that which is hidden behind our self-consciousness, our shame and our experience?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this might be the ultimate limitation on personal being besides having someone actually in your head. You definitely would develop some patience and perspective but I do not think that this would "broaden your perception against biases and objectiveness against certain subjects." This situation might bring about something like that response but I think there are easier ways to go about getting those same results.
ReplyDeleteIt would be pretty terrible to always be questioned and to have your actions always witnessed. You would be constantly objectified. I do think though that this situation might force some to learn how to beat the subjectivity of the others, as Sartre said, to encompass their subjectivity into your own; to transcend their subjectivity.
Wow what an interesting concept.
ReplyDeleteI think it would defiantly give me a better understanding about my self and what characteristics I posses strongly and weakly.
I will admit that I most defiantly have some flaws in my personality but, I think for the most part I am satisfied and comfortable with my-self. I think that my "Other" might hinder this confidence, as I would be too aware of my flaws.
Sartre refers to any direct consciousness of the thing-in-itself as a "pre-reflective consciousness." He uses the term "reflective consciousness" to then describe any trying to understand or describing the thing-in-it's self.
I think by creating the other, you would then have to change the term to 2things-in-itself. With two polar minds, consciousness would be very confusing.
ReplyDeleteHow would you know you were you, and not your other. Who was the original self? Or was there even an original self to begin with?
Reflective consciousness would be challenging. But in the long run I think it would lead you to be a very conscious and self-aware person.
I think it could be possible to become aware of our perceptions which are hidden behind our self-consciousness, our shame and our experience, but only if our other is willing to do the same. I think there needs to be understanding and acceptance by both parties in order for it to work. Taking Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy, if we are dialectic in our thinking (thought through judgment and experience) then we will go about trying to win arguments because of our innate vanity. But if you have always lived with your "other' then this tactic would not work in a proper argument, as facts and truths would be altered for the purpose winning each argument. But over time, I think you would not only become frustrated, but you would learn to adapt to the nature of a well constructed argument and possibly give the same insight to your other. My concern is that if there is not compromise, then one may lose his / her own integrity and become subject to the other's bias and experiences.
ReplyDeleteIn your question, I think you mean “subjectivity” versus “objectiveness”.
ReplyDeleteI think in some ways we already have (an/other): it is our self-doubt (or conscience). When I am faced with a situation, in my head I debate what I CAN do or say and what I SHOULD do or say. This forces me to look at all of the options and weight them appropriately to the scenario.
In my own experience, I know that I am not good with decisions. Given too many of them, I cannot decide which to choose. I think as a general rule, it is always better to broaden your horizons, but if you are born with an “other”, who would make the decisions?
If you were always the “good” guy, and your other was always trying to deviate from society, which side would you be on? If we look at the “other” idea as two people there has to be a mean. No one is entirely “good” or “evil”.
Watching a lot of family guy there, Richard?
ReplyDeleteI personally think that it would just cause a lot of confusion and even more dispute and chaos. There are enough people in this world that do not share our own opinion. A wiser person is one, who's able to look at both sides of an argument and then stick with the one he/she believes is best/true to themselves. You don't need to be constantly arguing with yourself for that, though.