“Where Do We Find the Individual?”

There is such a thing we call as the ‘insecurity about first principles’ (Santayana 5). The Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana knew about this a long time ago. “Long before the Second World War, he prophesied that relativism would be the inexorable fate of 20th Century European thinkers” (O’Sullivan 4). How come this matter of doubt still resounds randomly? It is not just in Europe but in a global scale. Has relativism captured the essence of the individual in our times?

Relativism has raised greater awareness at present. Take for example I ask you what is education and you answer me that it is an enquiry for greater knowledge. Another would say that it is a process for the verification of truths. The next one would define it as going to an institute that trains us to analyze and interpret things like that of scriptures or books. There could be countless other definitions. Some may end up like the previous answer but one could not deny that there is difference among those answers and I ask from where we could trace such phenomena? This is where relativism comes in. Each individual is set apart from the other through ‘perspectives’ wherein the idea of universality or uniformity is blurred. The existence of a single ‘perspective’ on reality that is both objective and universal is a fallacy (Robinson 71). It is a myth. It is one of those absurdities and fallacies I was made to believe while growing up. In school, the professors tell me what is the idea of God. It wouldn’t follow that the preconceived notion of a divine being they are trying to instill in you would be your own definition of a God or influence you to believe in such. It is not because it is what they teach; you believe it and accept it as it is. All things that we label as knowledge are relative (Robinson 72). There is no absolute truth for there is that personal approach, personal perception that serves as a basis on how we are to react on things. With regards to that, you ask yourself, should I believe this or not? Does it give justice and adhere to my personal beliefs?

Santayana was indeed right that people must resort to relativism. What appeared to be the concern of the Europeans is now ours. We must be in touch with our own self, our own personal beliefs, ideologies, and philosophy so as to discern wisely from this and that. If we act in light of what others think is right, we do not act responsibly. It enables us to be transformed into automatons, animated machines that move but do not think. The so called ‘insecurity about first principles’ appears rather suggestive. Society nowadays serves as a constraint that limits us and it has its own set of norms that tell us this is right and this is wrong on the basis of its foundations. Taking it now to foundations, aren’t these things rooted from these ‘first principles’, what the people from earlier times thought and believed things to be. Insecurity is a reaction, it states of rather unrest or uncertainty over the foundations. Rules survive only with the existence of those who break it. And relativism would not have come in to being if people hadn’t realized the benefits of doubting.

“Any kind of universal grounding is contemplated with deep suspicion” (Laclau 1). This must be the attitude of each and everyone, doubtful and judgmental. Only if we doubt then we are aware we have a say and that we are entitled to our own opinion. You may agree to what others say but it shouldn’t be like that always. You think and asses whether it justifies the means. As the things that we label as knowledge and consider as true is all subject to our own judgment. We all are subjective thinkers and as for universality or objectivity how could this be attained. To put it clearer, let us say that theory about something was founded by an individual many years ago. Based on this, many claimed his work to standardize all things that came with it or are related to it. They now declare it as a universal truth and from there on it has been passed from generation to generation. But now, with relativism within your grasp, do you not think that that person was also a subjective thinker. He also had his own biases therefore it blurs the possibility of objectivity. The idea of a universal truth in the first place shouldn’t have been declared as it was one-sided. It can never be objective because it doesn’t give you both sides of the matter.

In the present time, there are different kinds of persons living side by side. The other could be an individual who follows the norms, while the other questions the existence of it and ends up with the label of a non-conformist. Often times, the more we identify ourselves with what is the common notion of the public easily identifies us with them. This engages us in unison in terms of thought but as we try to associate ourselves more often with them but let us not permit this to be all the time. We are individuals and our only way to live like one is to take a side. Get rid of mediocrity so as not to act in bad faith. We must decide whether it is a yes or a no, whether we should go for it or not. Our decision must be our own choice for the individual might fly into oblivion if we will just pattern ourselves and familiarize ourselves with the public and the society we belong to. In our existence, what seems to be the greatest responsibility we have is our responsibility to our self. If you do not know how to find the individual in you, that one who is authentic and is different from the others then it is indicative that you are either unaware of your own responsibility or you are being inauthentic.

The essence individual is a personal approach that will enable us to determine the essence of being our own self. It is something that we truly are and not just some dictate of another. The problem with this world is that we often think and worry about what others think about us. What will they say? What will they think? What shall I do to please them? How shall it be? Each one of us is to determine our own essence and we are not to categorize ourselves with all those ready made standards available. We are individuals and we have every right to proclaim or act in whatever fashion for as long as we pursue and champion authenticity. We can always choose. Everything will always come from what we decide to be and all that we are now is a consequence of the decisions we make. As for the individual, it lies deep down in each and every one of us. Where is he? Where is she? It is up to you to answer that for the individual is our own battle and whether we would triumph authenticity over inauthenticity, it will all rely on our hands.

REFERENCES:

Laclau, E. The Making of Political Identities. London: Verso, 1994.

O’Sullivan, Noel. European Political Thought Since 1945. Palgrave: China, 2004.

Robinson, Dave. Postmodern Encounters: Nietzsche and Postmodernism. London: Cox &

Wyman, 2000.

Santayana, George. “The Intellectual Temper of the Age.” Selected Critical Writings

of George Santayana. Ed. N. Henfrey. Cambridge: CUP, 1968. 5.