In Search of A Lost Self

Frederic Nietzsche once says in one of his writing, "there are many things that we do not know, and in the nature of things". We do now why Phosphorus (atomic) has a tendency to combine with oxygen..."The fact it has we know, but why it act the way it act, we have no clue. Not just about the nature of things that we do not know. I venture to say, the thing that is very close to us, that is our own self, is also something we do not know or even dare to explore. We are probably assuming that we know about our self very well for if not, then that's probably a sign that we have lost our self in some extend. And It's a scary thought to begin with. Yet the heart of the matter cannot be ignored, do we really know our-self?  Timothy D. Wilson probably one of the best writer to explained this through the title of his brilliant book, Stranger to Ourselves. Yes, I agree. For our knowledge about ourselves might be just been a very shallow one. We do not even know who we are. 

Undeniably,  I think nobody will ever discuss self-knowledge lengthy or promptly, without bringing Socrates's word  in the discourse regarding 'self'. Yes, Socrates's word "Know Thy self" probably can be said as one of the most quoted word of all time.Even the imperative is very clear, to know self is not an easy task but arduous. Why? Because it involves the word, "know" and "Self".What do we mean by knowing? Do you mean to know accidentally, to know intellectually, to know intimately? And what do we mean by self? Is it a spiritual soul like what the religious people might claimed, or maybe it's another way to call "brain" and in fact, a majority view of a neurosciences believes that self is a synonymous form of what we called brain.  Hence, this issue of knowing self is never be trivial but very complex and profound in its deepness. Some people understand their self through the mean of relation to something, the objects, "I am equal to what I have". Okay, so let us stick closer to examine this idea.

To set the discussion, let me set the background first. Today, many religious people blamed Descartes. People says that because of him, the whole Western society has shifted their mind toward the anti-Meta-narative mindset, or at least now rationale is a new cup of tea to be adopted or even hailed to the top. Nevertheless, rarely people see his great contribution to philosophy as Descartes did in this following, he help the majority of thinkers who were so captivated  by the object-centered philosophy and lead them to a different road, to pay attention more to human, as the subject and object of philosophy per se. To understand myself, and even the external world are done through the measurement within, the conscious mind not the other-way round. I think this is the better starting point for our self search. 

Ironically, we lost the Descartes's spirit in modern society. We have been paid attention more to the objects (non-living things), just like the ancient philosopher did but even worst, we are not just defining the objects itself we are using them to define ourselves. Hence, It's not bizarre to say that we are losing our-self. We are in a quest to search our lost self not because we are genuinely curious about it but simply because we have made it lost along the way because we sell and exchange our self to something lower, that's saddening. Regarding this, people who hold the eco-humanism philosophy might ponder at this moment and responded, If generally the our-self we can be considered as a whole, the part of puzzle of nature so what's the different between us and the objects in the nature? How can we say the objects of nature are lower than us? Is it because they are been categorized as feminine and as the result of our dominated patriarchal worldview, then we can instantly claimed that our-self is higher than the objects in nature? 

The short answer regarding this matter is two-fold. First, from the evolutionary explanation, we are higher because we are the more advance form and product of evolution.We are more complex. Second, from the religious point of view, we are somehow carry the divine spark within us but not the objects.Whatever we are more familiar with, based on two-fold answer it is clear, we cannot understand ourselves simply by equating ourselves to something that are not even equal to us. Just by the general category we should already notice the truth, things are objects human are subjects. We can agree and disagree with the answer but the objects don't. The facts we can reason, is the solid prove that we are higher then the objects. Even the eco-humanism will agree, reason is valuable. Thus, it is us, human who should define the very values of objects not the reverse. People give name and define objects but never the objects define human, unless we do it ourselves intentionally out of desperation.

If the object cannot help us in search of self, Then how we come to define ourselves then? My answer are three layers. First, our-own selves tell who we are. In other word, we are the one who know our self best. People can understand us only from what apparent but not what is hidden. Our intention, our desire, our vision can be known only by ourselves. Second, other people tell who we are. Since we are primarily acting out of our unconscious mind, as Freud has discovered so,we need other to tell us who we as we are often unaware with what's going on about our own self. Third, God tell us who we are. God? Why God? Is it because God stand as the best shortcut and the easy way out to answer to fill every possible gaps on something that we are fuzzy about? Not a chance. At beginning we have come to an agreement that human cannot define their own self through the mean of the external object in nature. God, as Christian traditionally believe is not an objects and hence he is not of the nature. 

Karl Barth says, "God never and nowhere becomes the world. The world never and nowhere become God". For Barth, the nature and God are against each other (bei dem Gegenuber). Base on this rationale we might ask, if God is not nature. And nature cannot be equated to us. Can we safely relate to God to tell us who we are? But if God by theological understanding is transcend and above every being therefore there is no point of similarity between human and God. Can we says that God is good enough to tell us who we are? How can God share us some light about our limitation and temporariness since He is Eternal? How can he share us some light about our humanity if he Himself non-human? 

To this very question many religions has failed to answer but not for Christianity. Christianity believe in Christ, the God-man. He is the incarnate God who is truly human so he knows everything about us, Human and in fact, He is the proto-type and the final destiny of every human being should ever be and formed as they are bought now in an  union with Him (Romans 8:29; Ephesus 5:1-2). The narration of the Gospel shows that as the result of Christ's work, our old self die and new self rise. If indeed Christ is the one who gave us a new self, the it is logically proper to assume that He is also the one, who could tell us what it is all about. From this point on, we can at least grasp on how our estrangement, and a search of a lost self will be ended. For me personally, the best conclusion that best represented the whole idea of this writing was uttered by Frederick M Shepherd, as Frederick himself put it pertinently, 

"We cannot understand ourselves as isolated individuals, we cannot understand ourselves apart from one another, and we cannot understand ourselves apart from the God who has created us for union with him (Christ)."