Idea of Self Interest from Humanistic Philosophy

To Spinoza self-interest or the interest to "seek one's profit" is identical with virtue. He says, "The more each person strives and is able to seek his profit that is to say, to preserve his being, the more virtue does he possess; on the other hand, is so far as each person neglects his own profit he is impotent". According to this view, the interest of man is to preserve his existence, which is the same as realizing his inherent potentialities. This concept of self-interest is objectivistic inasmuch as "interest" is not conceived in terms of the subjective feeling of what one's interest is but of what the nature of man is, objectively. Man according to Spinoza has only one real interest and that is the full development of his potentialities, of himself as a "human being". Just as one has to know another person on his real needs in order to love him, one has to know one's own self in order to understand what the interests of his self are and how they can be served. It follows that man can deceive himself about his real self-interest if he is ignorant of his self and its real needs and that the science of man is the basis of determining what constitudes man's self interest.

In the last three hundred years the concept of self-interest has increasingly been narrowed until it has assumed almost the opposite meaning which it has in Spinoza's thinking. It has become identical with selfishness; and instead of its being synonymous with virtue, its conquest has become an ethical commandment.

This deterioration was made possible by the change from the objectivistic into erroneously subjectivistic approach to self-interest. Self-interest was no longer to be determined by the nature of man and his needs; correspondingly the notion that one could be mistaken about it was relinquished and replaced by the idea that what a person felt represented the interest of his self was necessarily his true self-interest.

The "fallacy of self-interest" in modern man has never been described better than by Ibsen in his play Peer Gynt. Peer Gynt believes that his whole life is devoted to the attainment of the interests of his self. He describes his self as:

"The Gyntian Self!

- An army, that, of wishes, appetites, desires!

The Gyntian Self!

It is a sea of fancies, claims and aspirations;

In fact, it's all that swells within my breast

And makes it come about that I am I and live as such"

At the end of his life he recognizes that he had deceived himself; that while following the principle of "self-interest" he had lost the very self he sought to preserve. He is told that he never had been himself and that therefore he is to be thrown  back into the melting pot to be dealt with as raw material. he discovers that he has lived according to the Troll principle: "To thyself be enough" - which is the opposite of human principle: "To thyself be true". He is seized by the horror of nothingness to which he, who has no self, can not help succumbing when the props of pseudo self, success, and possessions are taken away or seriously questioned. He is forced to recognize that in trying to gain all the wealth of the world, in relentlessly pursuing what seemed to be his interest, he had lost his self.

The failure of modern culture lies not in its principle of individualism, not in the idea that moral virtue is the same as the pursuit of self-interest, but in the deterioration of the meaning of self-interest, not in the fact that people are too much concerned with their self interest, but that they are not concerned enough with the interest of their real self; not in the fact that they are too selfish, but that they do not love themselves.

The issue in hand then is how to distinguish from the "subjective self interest" and "objective self interest". The question is how to know that a course of action expresses the real self, and at the same time is what is right and good - ie. expresses the true human nature of man. Putting it in other way how to discover one's own real self - own real conscience?

There is no prouder statement man can make than to say: "I shall act according to my conscience." Throughout history men have upheld the principles of justice, love and truth against every kind of pressure brought to bear upon them in order to make them relinquish what they knew and believed. The prophets acted according to their conscience when they denounced their country and predicted its downfall because of its corruption and injustice. Socrates preferred death to a course in which he would have betrayed his conscience by compromising with the truth. Without the existence of conscience, the human race would have bogged down long ago into its hazardous course.

One's conscience has to be developed such that it manifests the state of really being a human. That is the highest state of being for a man. In scholastic philosophy, conscience is considered to be the law of reason implanted in man by God. It is different from habit of faculty of judging, and of willing the right.

The issue becomes even more difficult when man accepts the contents of the Calvinistic doctrine. He makes himself an instrument, not of God's will but of the economic machine or the state. He has accepted the role of a tool for industrial progress. Not only do the authoritarian ideologies threaten the most precious achievement of Western culture, the respect for the uniqueness and dignity of the individual; they also tend to block the way to constructive criticism of modern society, and thereby to necessary changes. The failure of modern culture lies not in its principle of individualism, not in the idea that moral virtue is the same as the pursuit of self-interest, but in the deterioration of the meaning of self-interest; not in the fact that people are too much concerned with their self  interest, but that they are not concerned enough with the interest of their real self; not in the fact that they are too selfish, but that they do not love themselves. 

Canalizing of all human energy into work and the striving for success was one of the indispensable conditions of the enormous achievement of modern capitalism, a stage has been reached where the problem of production has been virtually solved and where the problem of organization of social life has become the paramount task of mankind. Man has created such sources of mechanical energy that he has freed himself from the task of putting all his human energy into work in order to produce the material conditions for living. He could spend a considerable part of his energy on the task of living itself. 

The idea is about realizing one's own self, i.e. the ideal nature of man - and use the opportunity of this life to use the unique power endowed to man, being his real self.

______________________________________________

Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Marcus Aurelius and his doctrine

Bust of Marcus Aurelius in the Glyptothek 

Marcus Aurelius (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; 26 April 121 – 17 March 180 AD), was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD. He ruled with Lucius Verus as co-emperor from 161 until Verus' death in 169. He was the last of the "Five Good Emperors", and is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers. During his reign, the Empire defeated a revitalized Parthian Empire; Aurelius' general Avidius Cassius sacked the capital Ctesiphon in 164. Aurelius fought the Marcomanni, Quadi, and Sarmatians with success during the Marcomannic Wars, but the threat of theGermanic tribes began to represent a troubling reality for the Empire. A revolt in the East led by Avidius Cassius failed to gain momentum and was suppressed immediately.

When he was eleven years old he assumed the dress of philosophers, something plain and coarse, became a heard student, and lived a most laborious, abstemious life, even so far as to injure his health. He abadoned poetry and rhetoric for philosophy, and attached himself to the sect of the Stoics. But he did not neglect the study of law, which was useful preparation for the high place which he was designed to fill. 

Marcus Aurelius Stoic tome Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration.

It was the doctrine of Marcus Aurelius that most of the ills of life come to us from our own imaginations, that it was not in the power of others seriously to interfere with the calm, temperate life of an individual, and that when we fellow being did anything to us that seemed unjust he was acting in ignorance, and that instead of stirring up anger within us it should stir our pity for him. Oftentimes by careful self examination we should find that the fault was more our own than that of our fellow, and our sufferings were rather from our own opinions than from anything real.

The circle of man's knowledge is very limited, and the largest circles do not wholly include the smalls. They are intersecting the segment common to any two is very small. Whatever lies outside the space does not exists for both. Hence arise innumerable contests. The man having the largest intelligence ought to be very generous to the other. Being thankful that he has been blessed in so many ways, he should do all in his power to enlighten his less favored fellow, rather than be angry with him on account of his misfortune. Is he not sufficiently punished in being denied the light?

Assisting his uncle in the government of the great Roman Empire at seventeen, it was his aim constantly to restrain the power of the string and to assist the weak. It was greatest delight to retire to his country home and there, dwelling among his books, to meditate upon his books, to meditate upon his books, to meditate upon the great problems of life. He claimed that a man's life should be valued according to the value of the things to which he gave his attention. if his whole thought was given to clothing, feeding and housing himself comfortably, he should be valued like other well-housed and well-fed animals. He would, however, derive the greatest pleasure and benefit in this life by acting in accordance with reason, which demands of every human being that his highest faculties should govern all the rest, and that each should see to it that he treated his fellow kindly and generously and that if he could not assist him to a higher level he should at least not stand in his way. 

______________________________________________ 

Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Unconditionality – A Farce

Some people (including me) are most of the times driven by what they call “unconditional love”. They do not practice that from the standpoint of freedom. Rather they are driven unconsciously to be unconditional. They force themselves into the space and lives of others, even when the other person does not need them. They neurotically are driven to “be of help”. They use the socially acceptable rationalizations presented in the phrases like, “being a means”, “being relevant”, “being a giver” to justify their precarious way of relating to the world.

From birth to death, they have the same repeating pattern – “being a saint”, to others. Going deep into the nature of such men, one is surprised to discover that there is a deep sense of lack in their inner psyche. They are vexed with “having” from others (actually from everyone in this world), an acknowledgement, love, respect, understanding, and above all – affirmation of who they are. This crops out from that deep seated inferiority complex, and lack of self. They do not know their own self worth, and who they are, and look for affirmation of the same from others. Even if they have an inkling of their self, they want to re-affirm the same by hearing it from others.  This propensity of man is driven by the deep seated drive to “have”, rather to “be”. Such men are “takers”. It has been the biggest insight of my life to realize that I have been a person of this sort most of my life, till date. This insight cropped to me by myriad of my personal experiences, interactions with people in my world, books I have been reading, and contemplations I have been doing.

I have been reading and contemplating on the works of Erich Fromm, since last few months. I have been trying to be able to really go deep into the mind of Fromm, with help of his books – The art of loving, Fear of Freedom, and the one I am reading now – “Man for himself”. I also have been reading and listening to him over the internet from the archives. The most concrete synthesis of the personality type I have been discussing has been very succinctly postulated by Fromm in his book – “Man for himself – An inquiry into the psychology of ethics”, as follows. He calls such people – “Receptively Oriented”

“…They feel “the source of all good” to be outside, and believe that the only way to get what they want – be it material, be it affection, love, knowledge, pleasure – is to receive it from that of the outside source. In this orientation the problem of love is almost exclusively that of being loved and not that of loving. Such people tend to be indiscriminate in the choice of their love objects, because being loved by anybody is such an overwhelming experience for them they “fall for” anybody who gives them love or what looks like love. They are exceedingly sensitive to any withdrawal or rebuff they experience on the part of the loved person. Their orientation is the same in the sphere of thinking: if intelligent, they make the best listeners, since their orientation is one of receiving, not of producing. If religious, these people have a concept of God in which they expect everything from God and nothing from their own activity. If not religious, their relationship to person or institutions is very much the same, they are always in search of a “magic helper”. They show a particular kind of loyalty, at the bottom of which is the gratitude for the hand that feeds them and the fear of ever losing it. Since they need many hands to feel secure, they have to be loyal to numerous people. It is difficult for them to say “no”, and they are easily caught between conflicting loyalties and promises. Since they cannot say “no”, they love to say “yes” to everything and everybody, and the resulting paralysis of their critical abilities make them increasingly dependent on others.
This receptive type has great fondness for food and drink. These persons tend to overcome anxiety and depression by eating or drinking. The mouth is an especially prominent feature, often the most expressive one; the lips tend to be open, as of in a state of continuous expectation of being fed.
By and large, the outlook of people of this orientation is optimistic and friendly; they have a certain confidence in life and its gifts, but they become anxious and distraught when their “source of supply” is threatened. They often have a genuine warmth and a wish to help others, but doing things for others also assumes the function of securing their favor.”


Certainly the above postulation from Fromm is not a description of one person, rather a personality type. A human being is far more complex than one template of personality type. There are other aspects which synthesize together to give a unique nature to a person.

But, it was really very fulfilling for me to catch myself red handed. I have been always very proud of being “unconditional”. Of late I have been discovering that it is just a façade, inside which I have been hiding that longing to be “accepted” and be “loved”. This have been driving me to force myself to others, either rendering an un-solicited help, or over graciousness, showing of excessive concern for others, expressing forced solidarity with one and all. Obviously this propensity cuts across all the spheres of my life, and the way I relate to the outside world. In reality, there is need, this sense of poverty, always trying its best to get that signal of acknowledgement and affirmation of who I am, from the outside world.

Being brought up in an environment of a Roman Catholic mission school in childhood, I have been strongly influenced by the preaching of Jesus on unconditional love. I got this socially acceptable rationalization of “unconditional love” presented to me in childhood, to hide the weakness of my inner self. And the most interesting thing is that, it is all unconscious!

I am aware many people in my world have been feeling claustrophobic due to this peculiar drive in my personality. Nevertheless, it helps to build a false mask of being positive. Interestingly I have been getting awards for being the most positively oriented person in my department at work, for the last 3 years in succession. But it is now that I realize what is the source of my being so receptive and positive!

It is certainly important and highest of human virtues to be unconditional and loving to the world. But the whole philosophy crumbles down when it is just a farce, a façade hiding something else. The problem is when such high virtues are practiced being “driven” by these deep seated vulnerabilities – the aspects of under developed personalities – as in the case of mine. Such divine virtues has to be practiced from the firm foundation of being grounded in dharma, and no real need for the self.

This insight about my own self, has been a difficult and most excruciating process of last 10 years of my life. I always had an inkling to this, but was looking out for a concrete synthesis for the same, I guess. Thanks to the numerous books and people in my life, who have so genuinely contributed to me, enabling me to discover this weakness of my inner self.

This insight has helped me to understand the idea of spontaneous productive activity, that Fromm has been putting forth repeatedly in his various books, to overcome separateness. It is certain that man has to resolve his separateness with himself and his outer world – both other men, and nature. But the drive to resolve this separateness is not about forcing myself into the space of others, who really do not need me. That is the case of a typical sado-masochistic craving. Resolving separateness is not about closeness and intimacy with the object (man or nature), although at the expense of freedom and one’s own integrity. It is not about losing one’s own self, and being a doll of salt, dissolving in a bowl of water. That way the doll has been able to resolve its separateness with water. But, in this process has lost his real self – of being a doll. This never leads to happiness. A horse will be happy only to be the best horse. It will never want to be a tiger or a rabbit. It is important for man to realize that self integrity, and affirmation of one’s own uniqueness and individuality is of prime importance for man to find happiness and fulfillment.
When Fromm talks about resolving one’s separateness, he speaks about understanding the other. It is about entering into an inquiry, a state of concern, respect, objectivity, care, responsibility, and love. Love is the productive form of relatedness to others and to oneself. It implies responsibility, care, respect and knowledge, and the wish for the other person to grow and develop. It is the expression of intimacy between two human beings under the condition of preservation of each other’s integrity.  

So, the process of resolving the separateness starts with preserving one’s own integrity, and at the same time integrity of the other. This will stop a man to force himself into the other, thereby dissolving his own integrity and expressing a ruthless attitude to swallow the other. This drive is often hidden in various socially acceptable ways - either being too nice to people, or showing extra care to others, or calling someone by loving names, though totally un-solicited! At core of all this, there is a deep seated sado-masochistic craving. The person expresses both sadism and masochism simultaneously.

A place of freedom would be resolving the separateness from the place of total understanding of the needs of the other. It is also about knowing someone at his core. It is about being able to really discern what is superficially apparent, and go in search of the truth about man and nature. This requires lot of productive orientation, contemplation, concern and vitality. Once that truth is found it is interesting so observe the unity in otherwise ostensive diversity prevalent in this world. The one-ness of the world overwhelms one in joy and pure bliss!

It is so true when H.P.Blavatsky mused in her book – The Voice of Silence –
“The biggest illusion of all is the illusion of separation”. 

______________________________________________

Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Saving the self

I feel that the most important task in one’s life is to realize one’s own self, develop it, and keep growing gradually to be a person what one has found out to be ideal – for himself. Life is an ongoing journey to carve out the best in oneself; the best that one feels is his own best, for which he is proud of, and being who, enables him to use and realize his own potential.
This has been beautifully expressed by Plotinus[204-270 AD] -  a neo Platonic philosopher, as follows, in his book Enneads –

“Withdraw into yourself and look. And if you do not find yourself beautiful yet, act as does the creator of a statue that is to be made beautiful: he cuts away here, he smoothes there, he makes this line lighter, this other dark, until a lovely face has grown out of his work.
So do you also: Cut away all that is excessive, straighten all that is overcast, labor to make all one glow in beauty and never cease chiseling your statue, until there shall shine out on you from it the God like splendor of virtue, until you see the perfect goodness strongly established in the stainless shrine.”

I have tried to symbolically express that process of chiseling one’s perfect self through the series of my poems - http://criativ-mind.blogspot.in/search/label/SIMONI%20SERIES
This series constitutes of 15 poems on a fictitious renaissance sculptor Michel Simoni. He goes on carving out a statue in marble, most of his life. Eventually in his spontaneous activity of perfecting the statue he falls in love with it. The statue symbolizes Simoni’s real self. With all wisdom, scholastic pursuits, life’s experiences, contemplation, and actions, Simoni tries to discover his real self, and then goes on perfecting that real self – in this case the statue – which he names – “The lady with the most beautiful eyes.” As the statue comes to completion, he has almost lived his entire life, and dies out. But before dying he sees to it that he has perfected his real self (the statue) to such a high level of beauty, that the Gods even fall in love with his statue – symbolizing attainment of godliness. There are times when Apollo himself descends from the Mount Olympus, being lovelorn with the statue (the real self of Simoni).

As it is important to discover, sustain and grow one’s own real self, it is also important to save it from harm. As the immune system of the body is needed to save it from the onslaught of the infections from countless pathogens all around, the self has also to be actively saved from harm. The pathogens that kill the self are life circumstances, criticism from others, fear, hatred - both being hated by others, and one hating the other, diabolic activities, pessimistic attitudes, etc which goes to diminish one’s own self. These entities contributes in diminishing one’s own self. And the self has to be actively guarded from those. Buddha had put this idea very succinctly. He suggests that the goal of mankind is to free itself from greed, hatred and delusion. These are the veils which hides the real self of man.

There is this beautiful story told about Buddha. When he was spending years in meditation and contemplation, in forest, there used to pass a rich trader by him, daily. He was a wealthy and very successful man. He used to blame Buddha saying that he is totally un-productive, and is wasting his life sitting idly under the tree, without doing anything productive. Going by today’s standards too, that seems logical. Buddha continued to meditate and did not get perturbed. This trader continued to do so for a very long time. Each day he used to come, and rebuke Buddha. But Buddha did not change. Years passed by. As the trader started growing old, it was one day, when something happened to him, and this day, instead of seeing Buddha in the eyes of hatred and shouting at him with contempt, he fell down on this feet. He pleaded Buddha to forgive him, because he realized that he had hurt Buddha throughout his life. Buddha opened his eyes, and with a smile said, “You did not hurt me. Whatever you had to give, I never took.”

 I feel that is the key! People give what they have. If a person is grounded in hatred, narrowness, selfishness, and in the spree just to take and hoard, he will be able to radiate only that. There is nothing else he can give, as he has nothing more than that. If one takes these poisons, he will be killing his own self. It is important not to take these, and actively save oneself from the company of such entities. The idea is not only about saving oneself from such people. But also saving oneself from such ideas, thoughts, events, actions, and attitudes. Having said that I do not mean that one should not take constructive feedback to improve oneself. One has to do so, through contemplation, active listening, reading, experimenting, trying out stuffs, and living life fully, and self analyzing oneself. But one has to exercise discrimination on what he is taking in. It is same as food. If one takes poisonous food, one harms his own body. Similarly, if one takes in a harmful thought, remark, opinion, one harm his real self. One has to develop his strength and finesse in hearing such remarks, being in such circumstances, interacting with such people, but at the same time, not taking what diminishes his real self. To repeat, this does not mean such entities are bad. It only means they are foreign to one’s real self, and they help in no way to chisel one’s own sculpture to the awesome beauty, so that even Apollo can fall in love for.

This exercise is not easy. One has to understand this is not about entering into a cocoon, and increasing one’s separateness from others. Rather it is contrary to that. One has to actively understand and relate to others with supreme concern, responsibility, care, objectivity, faith, respect and love. One has to be productively oriented being able to discern aspects which are ostensibly and apparently not visible. As aptly Antoine de Saint Exupery had mused in his book - The Little Prince -

"And now here is my secret, a very simple secret; it is only with the heart that one can see rightly. What is essential is invisible to the eye"

To be able to grasp that what is invisible to the eye, one has to exercise his reason, mental faculties, imagination, love, compassion, sense of reverence, etc. One has to understand that to be able to discern what is invisible one has to be truly human. As the faculties I have listed above is what makes us uniquely human. One has to understand that imagination is different, infact opposite to fantasy. Imagination is the faculty to see what is not visible, but is present. Fantasy is about dreaming what is not present. It is an illusion. Imagination is the truth - beyond illusion which is apparent.

Another aspect about saving one's own self, is also to nourish the self of the other, i.e. to have a sense of respect, space and affirmation of the uniqueness of the other. What is considered poison for one's own self, might be what nourishes the other self, and that is perfectly valid. That is the beauty of this life – people are different. It would be so boring if one sees just the images of his own self, all over!! Certainly one would hate to be in such a monotonous world. So, it is not about hating the entities who are not like one's own self. Rather it is loving them, and giving them their nourishment to survive and flourish. But at the same time, one has to actively save one’s own self. Remember, Buddha did not go and kill that trader. He gave that trader his space and freedom to behave the way he pleased – sometimes rebuking him, sometimes pleading for forgiveness. It is irrelevant what was the action the trader chose. But whatever he chose, he was free to do. A proper space and respect was given to him to behave and react the way what he found correct and in-line to his own real self.

One has to at the same time keep in mind one more very important aspect of all these prevalent differences and uniqueness. There is an invisible thread of unity which is prevalent embracing all of mankind. Beyond the apparent diversity there is that unity which connects us. All of the mankind is faced with the same existential dilemmas. All has the same seed of love and light deep in their heart. It is only the artificial veils, separations, and guards that are created by man, society, and circumstances which hide that real self of man, which is soaked in love, since its conception.

So, part of realizing one’s real self, is affirming other’s self at the same time. It is very important. Human solidarity is the necessary condition for the unfolding of any one individual.  One has to go beyond seeming separations, and appreciate the flow of unity hidden.

PS - I want to apologies if  the style of my writing appears didactic. It has never been my aim to preach others. I know I am a disciple, and never a teacher. I cannot teach, as I am myself in the journey to know. My articles are expressions of my insights. I keep myself in the place of the reader, and try to write what I want to say to myself. It none of my prerogative to teach others, and change others. I am aware that all my insights might be absolutely rubbish for others. But at this point I take these insights as very precious - for myself - just for me. I share my insights to others just in a hope, if it helps others. If it does not, please ignore them.

______________________________________________ 

Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar