Existentialism and Self-Identity
After reading Luis Borges' Borges and I at least five times now I am still utterly and hopelessly confused. What are we supposed to do or think about the self? It is there in our head but that is about it. It can be reflected sometimes through speech but ultimately only small fractions that do not fully grasp it. It can be expressed through clothes or other forms of work but they all fail to fully capture a person's self--and these are put out there for world to view and judge and trivialize. Or it can be let alone to toil in the head.
I am not trying to argue for a Cartesian mode of self, but i am not arguing against it. I am merely trying to figure out what role it plays in existentialism. If you are fully aware of your actions which I think is a staple to Sartre's makeup of existentialist thought: "what would happen if everyone did as one is doing?" Is it not the point of existentialism to shock you into a form of self-awareness that lets you realize you are in control of yourself. But isn't saying that you are in control of yourself also troubling? At what point when I am not reflecting on myself am I not in control? If I am washing plates, I can reflect on myself doing it. I can daydream or think on other matters and the dishes will still be done. Is that not odd? I could have been thinking in my head the whole time: "wash those dishes to perfection! What if everyone were to wash dishes like that?!?" But I didnt. I cannot do this though if I am reading a book. Is it not impossible to read a book and at the same time try and focus on yourself reading the book? If I were to do that I would have missed out what the book said. So what happens to the voice of self during the times of deep concentration? Is this situation not as solomon describes it: "The paradox of self-identity, Solomon says is the ultimate existentialist quandary."
The short excerpt from Borges ends by stating "I don't know which on of the two of us is writing this page." The two of us is referring to him and Borges which are the same person. Trying to distinguish between the two selves that "I like hourglasses, maps, eighteenth-century typography, etymologies, the taste of coffee, and Robert Louis Stevenson's Prose; he shares the preferences, but with a vanity that turns them into the attributes of an actor" I think if read this too much it will make me go crazy, but nonetheless it is extremely interesting. Is the mere typing of those lines about what he likes the vanity that is attributed to actors? It has to be, but how else could he express his point and why does it have to fall into this divide of think that knows, thinks reflects and thing that physically embodies these sentiments.
Does anyone else find this interesting/troublesome?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
From what I understand of your blog post, I think you are discussing the relationship between the physical and the mental with regards to existentialism. While existentialism heavily emphasizes self-reflection, it is this self-reflection that is embodied into one’s actions and then taking responsibilities for one’s actions. However, this relationship between body and soul, if you will, has been a popular concept throughout history. So to put the matter into context. During the late Middle Ages, Caroline Walker Bynum searched for a way to define her Being that moved beyond her being as a female. In previous years, the body was seen as an enemy of the soul and seen as the center of temptation and decomposition as many medieval women theologians attempted to decimate their bodies in an attempt to gain greater spirituality. The 13th and 14th century theologians searched to bridge the gap between material and spiritual and wanted to give the body a positive significance. High scholasticism modified traditional Platonic theologies saying that “the person is a soul, making use of the body”. Many theologians described it as a “psychosomatic unity” – body and soul together, which can be used to describe my views on the physicality of existentialism. Once women are able to move beyond defining themselves as a woman, they may be able to find a spirituality that is more valuable for themselves. In any case, the body is used merely as a tool to implement one’s beliefs in the world while taking responsibility for one’s own actions.
I just think that he has a bit of a complex. Borges just thought that he was two people, and therefore spent a lot of time alone as a child, you know, talking to himself and what not. He just wants people to understand the importance of self-reflection in understandings oneself. If you don't reflect upon yourself, you don't actually give yourself a way to critically examine your life. And the reading problem is easily solved by not reading.
Post a Comment