The Existence of Others

Prior to this assignment, I had heard Descartes’ expression “I think, therefore I am” numerous times without ever knowing what it meant. Funnily enough, it’s the very thought I’ve been attempting to grapple with personally.

How do you react to the plausible reality that all of this existence is imagined? The feeling at first takes the form of a wave of shock accompanied by paralyzing fear for me. I’ve spent hours and hours with a loop of these thoughts running in the background of every action. I feel that if any person decides to focus on this idea enough, they will prove its truth. Suffice to say, I wholly agree with Descartes his proposition of the cogito. In Jean-Paul Satre’s Being and Nothingness, he states, “But the other is the indispensable mediator between myself and me. I am ashamed of myself as I appear to the Other.” He attempts to explain the existence of others through this idea, yet I feel he is overlooking an integral piece of Descartes argument. We cannot confirm our sensory inout is to be trusted. Simply having thoughts may mean we are something but the thoughts themselves may hold no weight. We may be aliens or gods imagining a reality or living inside a matrix, the possible scenarios are endless. With this in mind, our thoughts as manipulated by others or their effect on us does not prove anything. All mentions of the Other proceeding this must be attached to this caveat.

Yet why do we suppose that our minds are functioning properly? The majority can agree with this idea that we can’t trust our senses because hallucinations and optical illusions exist. But why do we assume that our thoughts themselves are not faulty, that the thoughts themselves make sense? Trust in the mind over sight seems to me to be an inaccurate evaluation, as it is possible that we are collectively “dumb”.

Further, I believe shame can be said to be only an extension of punishment. Our reaction to it is a reaction to social standards as a whole and wherever their formation is rooted. When Sartre says, “Nobody can be vulgar all alone”, I find it hard to agree. He explains, “Shame is by nature recognition. I recognize that I am as the Other sees me.” I believe shame is only present when we perceive life through ideals others have created. At the core, all forms of shame can be said to be superficial. In all of my close connections I find that there is no way to shame an individual if I follow their trail of emotional reactions. In this way, we are able to compare a person against themselves rather than against their environment. The lasting concepts adopted by your environment make it possible to be vulgar while you’re alone. When you pick your nose in private, you’re still aware that it is believed to be vulgar. This awareness is proof that we always judging ourselves through what we believe our environment finds shameful. Much of the way we express ourselves and the image we cultivate in our private time is entirely dominated by how we expect to be treated. The key difference between this and Sartre’s assertion is that these are our expectations, they are not the truth. If you are unaware that others find an action shameful, you will not shame yourself. All this said, I find that we are as we see ourselves and often times we see ourselves as we think others see us. If we really knew the snap judgments made about us we would probably go mad. This in mind, I find that transcendence of shame entirely leads to the more accurate question of intent. Those that have not ruminated on their own ideals are by default projecting their contemporaries views or views from the past. I believe that if we were to ask ourselves what the intent of our beliefs or appearance are suggesting, we would move towards a happier existence. Detachment from this idea of shame also leads to the detachment of our concept of self. We are not locked to any idea we agree with, we are the intent behind them. Our creations are not attached to us and from moment to moment, we must reevaluate our intent. Through this way of thinking, we are attempting to view one another as what they are in the moment and never as they may be labelled. ( As I’m writing this I’m thinking this might all be exactly what Sartre was saying. )

I think it’s possible that many of us are conflating our fear of punishment with the shame we experience. While shame may not be what we think it is, the punishments that are associated with it definitely are. With the ability we have today to refine our image and the immediacy with which information travels, our private actions have great potential to impact our wellbeing. When we apply this idea to political or philosophical concepts, I begin to question how much this has restricted our thoughts. This is in stark contrast of Sartre’s assertion that shame is recognition of how the Other sees you. Following this line of thought, our discussion changes drastically. The same fear can possibly be applied to the interactions we face on a daily basis. For example, as a man today, you are far more likely to be able to overpower a woman physically. When approaching a woman, most men don’t take this into account, especially if they believe they’re acting from a place of kindness. In my experience, when men that are clearly physically superior have hit on me, I immediately feel the need to carefully watch my words. This is, of course, anecdotal and an inaccurate comparison but it makes me wonder how I much differently I would think if this were the dynamic the majority of the time. I imagine that variations in experience which seriously alter the potential risk would have drastic reverberations in our ideals. Undoubtedly, physicality will always play some kind of role in our lives but we cannot allow it to blind us to the humanity of an individual. Applying this to our experience as a whole, I don’t think we can form a true evaluation of the Other if we infuse every idea with our fear.

(1059 words)