Today in Psychology class, we studied about the Neo-Freudians, who were basically psychologists who based their studies on Sigmund Freud's basic theories while deviating at other points. One of these psychoanalysts is Karen Horney, who offers a feminist criticism of the Freudian concept of "penis envy." But aside from this, she also mentions about how children carry with them a basic anxiety that is created when they face a complex world of adults. To cope with this anxiety, Horney (pronounced as "horn-eye" for those of you dirty-minded people)presents (1) moving towards people or socializing, (2) moving away from people or isolation, and (3) moving against people or competition.
(Sorry for the lengthy introduction, just kept on typing.)
Anyway, what I propose is something different. A kind of movement that would acknowledge the inner greatness embedded in each human being. I'm not saying that I'm an expert in psychoanalysis or I could justifiably and concisely critique Horney (again, "horn-eye"). I just want to include a more philosophical perspective to the preceding psychologist. To me, attaining self-actualization and minimizing anxiety not only requires moving along with, away from, or against people, but also involves moving people.
But what exactly do I mean by this? The simple truth about people is that they could not exist without other people. They may choose to live in solitude or become antisocial, but the fact of the matter is, everything they would do involves, either directly or indirectly, the entity of another. No man can sufficiently sustain his emotional, psychological, physical, spiritual, intellectual, biological, and other necessities by himself. As the old adage goes, "No man is an island."
With this as the foundation of my argument, I think that people have the ability to go beyond merely socializing with people, fighting with them, or worse, not wanting them. The fact that we are humans entails an obligation to care for one another. Noticeably, Horney's anxiety coping mechanisms connote some sort of selfish desire. The fact that the three proposed actions are employed by humans for their own well-being clearly shows how self-interested they are. Moving people, on the other hand, presents what I'd like to call "selfish altruism," where inspiring others motivates oneself to continue doing what he or she has been doing all the while. If moving towards is being sociable, moving away is being alone, and moving against is competing with others, then moving people is inspiring and motivating others for the sake of one's personal fulfillment. In essence, the pursuit of happiness is determined by the pursuit of people.
But this is not a novel idea. Since the time of the ancient Greeks, philosophers like Aristotle have already managed to examine the purpose and the ultimate goal of man which is happiness. In the Ethics, Aristotle mentions the importance of virtue in human life and how it serves as the best way to successfully achieve true happiness. Moreover, he views true friendship as not merely a relationship of pleasure or utility, but as a mirror of oneself's goodness. Hence, what you see in others is what you see in yourself. The reciprocity in this virtuous and good friendship shows a unity among men (and women, I'm not sexist) which uses a "pay it forward" type of scheme where one good deed exponentially spreads throughout humanity.
I can't help but agree with Aristotle, or with any other person who believes in this simple idea. What bothers me though, is the inability of man in this time and age to contemplate and to concretely apply good deeds. Perhaps this is a result of modern technology and its consequent effects to the dehumanization process. Today's modern life has become more complicated than ever. Well if that's the case, then I guess it's time to move.
0 comments:
Post a Comment