Between Self and Space: Dignity, Alterity, and the Modern Condition of Freedom and Reason in our Society
Individuals construct their self-image through the lens of others, is what Blaise Pascal may argue. One must not search for their dignity in the eyes of others, but inside their own universe. If one lets itself be grasped by the space, the other universe engulfs it. Only through the power of individual thought this equation can be inverted. We may have two instances of the universe- the individual one which is represented by our thoughts, the self – and the other one represented by space, by extension the society; both so complex yet possible to grasp through thought. Our abundance in materialistic possessions is not offering us an advantage to overthrow this postulate. If we may be tempted to think that it does, it happens exactly what Pascal prior warned us about: we’re searching for our dignity in space.
Dignity is a social construct. It cannot be dissociated from its social character. The concept of dignity is exactly the mechanism through which the space – society – places us in a higher or lower position among individuals. It is the idea through which people grasp us. Therefore, Pascal is not precise when referring to dignity in ourselves, in our thoughts. How can one have dignity if it is alienated from space, taking into consideration the fact that space constructed the concept of dignity in the first place? The individual is part of the space: he lives in it, it is a product of it. This is from where he takes its thoughts in the first place. Therefore, from this point on, it arises a more difficult question: nowadays, how can the individual avoid being subjected to the grasp of it? Is it the power of reason and one’s thought the only vehicle for this problem? In a modern world where the influence of the giddying progress of technological advancement overthrows any effort for individuality, how can one avoid being engulfed by space? Hence, in this essay, I will first proceed to analyse the implications of Pascal’s viewpoint. Mostly, I agree on his stance, but I consider necessary to add more nuances to this problem in order to have a full viewpoint of the philosophical problem. Moreover, I will extend my stance and debate to modern day society, using Emmanuel Levinas concept of Otherness and “The Face”. Then, I will proceed to try to converge on both viewpoints and may try offer a final conclusion that can foster a synthesis between the contradictory facts of this problem.
Dignity and thought as compasses in space
As aforementioned, how can dignity exist alienated from space, if the space is the one who invented the concept of dignity in the first place? Can one’s configuration of thoughts be a vehicle for achieving this? How do we know we have achieved dignity in the first place? First of all, I will argue that not solely through conceptualizing the space of universe we may achieve this, but mostly through the grasp of ourselves. It is inevitable for the individual to reference itself to the space; it is the ambient in which he exists and thinks. One cannot full dissociate from it. Understanding and grasping ourselves is what Pascal tries to point out “organization of my thoughts”. We first need to grasp the self if we do not want the space to do so for us. Inevitably, we’re finding the individual in a submission relationship to the space even by a logical perspective: If A stands for the space or society, B stands for the individual, B finds itself inside A, and A is the universe of discourse for B. But there is another nuance here; if B is only a part from A, what else can we find in A? Our alterity. Terms similar to B, us, with the same value and equal to each other, even if they are called ‘C’ or ‘D’, or, in actual life, ethnicity, race or nationality. These terms are equal, and putting them together hence obtaining the term A, which is society. So why be afraid of space, if you can find out this space is configurated of elements equal and similar to you? One may be in submission relationship to the space but in a complementary one to its elements. Diving into it without a self-identity and reason is hollowing for the individual existence. Hence, the exercise of reason and organizing one’s thoughts must start from individuality in order to comprehend the universe and alterity. Understanding ourselves is the first vehicle for doing similar with the space and its elements, since we have established prior that we’re similar to what we may proceed to understand after we’ve made this exercise on our identity.
Thereafter, proceeding to try do to so with the universe is what may help us to comeback to the first instance – our identity. Solely letting us be configurated by space without having a prior established self-image is an exercise in vacuity. However, reasoning only ourselves and for ourselves is a tyrannical exercise of reason. Only by using a circular motion of reason we can grasp the universe. However, trying to grasp and engulf the other without taking into account its equalness to us is what deprives us of dignity. Considering others more or less deserving of dignity is exactly what hollows our moral compass. Hence, on this point, I must partially disagree with Pascal when he argues that “it is not in space that I must look for my dignity, but in the organization of my thoughts.” My stance is that the organization of our thoughts in relationship with the space is what encompasses this trait. One may call himself ‘a person with dignity’ (or not) in his own thoughts inevitably after the encounter with the others or the space. We have two outcomes: 1) one let’s itself be defined on this matter by others; 2) one defines itself on this matter by comparing himself with others and organizing it’s thoughts according so. In both outcomes, how our thoughts are organized what how the concept of dignity appears in our minds is dependent on the space. The manner in which we search for dignity depends on us. But the interdependence between space-thoughts remains.
Modern-day society and its implications on this matter
After what prior debated, here arises another question: how the individual should perceive and be in relation with the space? The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas would argue that when we eliminate the face of the Other, we actually eliminate what makes us human. ‘The face’ is not only a visual encounter, but an ethical one. Is something that escapes my endeavours to grasp it or to conceptualize it. The comprehensive vocation of human thoughts and minds is what undermines alterity – its infinite universe is impossible to fully grasp by one. The alterity, in this case,suffers exactly what Pascal defines in his statement as “the universe grasps and engulfs me like a pinpoint”. Hence, I also must put into scrutiny what Pascal states, more precisely that “through thought I can grasp it”. Isn’t this an act of comprehensive tyranny exercised on the Other? We cannot reduce it to a concept or definition, that would be the negation of alterity. We’ve prior stated that other are equal to us, starting from the fact that we’re all complementary elements from the universe of discourse represented by society. In this case, we must have some sort of epistemic humility: we are free to organize our thoughts and grasp ourselves in which manner we desire, because our mind is identical to our identity as a human being. But trying to do so with the Other is undermining for alterity. If one would not want to be ‘grasped’ or ‘engulfed’ by the universe, it must not do so with the other components of the universe. If one does not want to be defined by Other, it must not try itself to define the Other.
In order to have a more nuanced perspective on this problem, I suggest that we should make a short analysis between our contemporary society and this philosophical dilemma. Under the influence of technological progress, from now on how can we define dignity or the possibility of grasping the universe? How can we reason and freedom remain intact under the constant changing society is subjected to? We’ve been putting individuality on a pedestal but neglecting in what manner our reason and freedom should act around the others. In searching for defining concepts and morality solely throughout our own means and definitions, morality as a whole is becoming only an uncalibrated compass. Nowadays, we can send hate through comments on social media, spread cruelty online and feel no immediate consequences. We do not have a face in front of us that can visually encompass to us the moral repercussions of our actions. It is not that society has become fundamentally immoral; ethical encounter has a necessity for uninterrupted and immediate relationship and communication, whereas nowadays ethics are fragmented and interrupted through social media. Pascal states that “It is not space that I must look for my dignity’” but modern-day society fits someone into the definition of dignity based on social-media or internet constructs. He also conveys “I shall have no advantage in owning estates” but our contemporary life and function of it depends solely on money and materialistic elements. Inevitably, our environment tied financial status to dignity.
In the end, what really engulfs us is not the universe, but the virtual universe society recently constructed; under the constant stream and overflow of information, how can one organize its thoughts? How can we organise our social placement in relationship with others and correctly direct our morality in order to not produce harm? We can press “send” on a message and exit the conversation without facing the moral repercussions of our or one’s statement. However, in the face-to-face interaction, we cannot escape involvement, time is thick and the Other’s feedback is an immediate compass in what manner should we act accordingly. We live in a world determined to remove the face: people become profiles, swipe options, thousands of deaths become headlines; and we feel nothing because there is no face to picture in front of us the human emotions. Everyday, we may be exposed to thousands of faces on the internet and feel nothing. And here is the paradox: constant exposure does not enhance the alterity; it dilutes it in our minds. Our mind inevitably undermines Others as a copping mechanism under the stream of information.
I also suggest that our modern-day society is mostly constructed on reason, but on a rigid one. We have systems eminently based on reason – bureaucratic, technological, analytical – that fundament the functioning of our society. But they undermine humanity. They do not directly harm Others, instead they conceptualize people into data-based systems, algorithms and highly rigid structures. This type of structure is what negates humanity and also freedom. The algorithmic structure of social media which presents us with thousands of faces everyday fits into my statement. The encounter with alterity is now a systematized one, profoundly rigid. We may be tempted to think that the elimination of distance between us through the internet is an incentive for communication and connection. Instead, it undermines it, because human connection is mostly based on temporality. As aforementioned, we can whenever exit an interaction with a person and interrupt communication because it is mediated by technology. Hence, I argue that we must mostly value immediate interactions with the Others. Where the ethical encounter is not fragmented or interrupted by these means.
Conclusion: how can one abide by its thoughts and also the Others?
In this essay, I proceeded to argue partially in favour to Pascal’s statement and also add more nuances to the philosophical problem. Then, by introducing Emmanuel’s Levinas concept of “The Face” and alterity, I proceeded to extend the problem to contemporary life, as I argue it may enhance a broader perspective and understanding. By these means, we converge to the final question: how may one keep their identity intact and the alterity also in an everchanging world? This is not a final solution to this problem. only a palliative. I suggest that we solely need to grasp the fact that the universe of discourse of society contains equal elements, more precisely the identity and alterity. They are equal in dignity and value, and complementary in characteristics, empirical and intellectual faculties. Through these means we can grasp the universe. I also argue that living life mostly in the immediate dimension is incentive for human connection. Mediate interaction fragment ethics through an interruption of temporality in our communication. These suggestions when converged may offer a palliative for this philosophical problem in my perspective.
