The Remains of The Day
Okay, for all those of ya'll whove got this on my facebook, you can just skip this one.
So here's the thing, and it would seem that there's been rather a lot of things preying on my mind at this point.
Basically, we read this novel for "contemporary fiction" class this week and it was Ishiguro's book titled The Remains of The Day which is this story about a butler trying to come to terms with how and where his lfie has brought him at the remains of his days. Well, it's really quite a good book if you were to ask my opinion and I would suggest that you actually purchase this one and read it for yourself, and the point of this post really is to address a discussion we had on one point of the novel in class so I shall refrain from providing you with a summary of the story and allow you to (if you choose so) enjoy it yourself. But where was I?
Oh, right.
Dr. Andrew had mentioned something abouth ow Stevens (that's the butler by the way) was so engrossed with his "mask" of a butler that he had come to loose what Dr. Andrew had so cryptically labelled as "his true self". So my point is, is there even such a thing as a "true self" ?
Personally I find the entire notion a little hard to believe. Oh, I suppose we have our little inclinations towards one thing or another, and I guess one might say that human beings excercise what is, to a certain extent in some's opinions, free will. But aren't those all in some way or rather affected by external environmental factors? Typically, isn't everything simply some sort of "mask" that we have constructed?
But to prove my point perhaps an example is needed that I can provide quite easily. One only need to finish the following sentence "I am..." to see what I mean.
Here's what I got;
I am a male
I am a brother
I am an environmentalis
I am a Pisces
I am a Student
I am a Wiccan
I am a singer
I am an optimist
I am human.
And so on and so forth. The list of course would be most imeasurable if I were to list down every single thing and thought that I am. But if you were to consider a collection of such sentences as simple, and rather crude I must admit, definitions of the "self", then perhaps you can also see how perhaps everything that you had just made a list of is in someway constructed for you based on something else?
Even seemingly flawless identification markers like religioun, political ideology and philosophical beliefs cannot be counted upon as aspects of the "true self" because they too, were after all imposed upon us in some way or another, whether it be through birth or education or even the media! Even notions of ethnicity, like "chineseness" or "malayness" are in someway human constructs of the ages.
For example, I consider myself to be an optimist by outlook, but one can always attribute such an outlook invariably to my upbringing perhaps, something I picked up from my parents, or indeed the group of friends I choose to hang out with.
So, in a sense I would venture as far to say that everything that we are is in some way or another involved with something else that is external. And we have either adopted these external factors, or reacted to them in such a way that they appear in coherence with our everyday lives. Of course, one could argue that the identity of "human" is somewhat of a fixed "true self" though I would strongly contest against an overencompassing classification as a "species" that connotes identity.
So, in relation to what we've read in The Remains of The Day, if his philosophy on "greatness" and his position as a butler were simlpy masks that devoured the "true self" of the butler Stevens, then what indeed would that "true" Stevens have been like? Do you see my point now dear readers?
Place the question amongst yourselves. If your life philosophy, personal beliefs and your position as wife, mother, brother or whatever are shown to be "masks" that you have adopted for yourselves, then indeed, where or what is the "real" you? A complicated notion, no doubt but one I trust, you all here have the capacity to ponder on.
But back to my point. I am rather confused then to what some people might consider as a one "true self", or indeed if others may consider that it at all exists? As you might recollect, from my earlier sentiments, I myself do not hold much regard for such statements or notions (as romantic as they are and as much a fan of romanticism as I consider myself to be) simply on the grounds that who we are and what we think are often than not constituted by various things we pick up from and through our interraction with our environment. In a sense, a person typically constructs his identity to suit his or her own lifestyle and indeed, changes it when the need arises. How then, in this sense, can Identity be considered a one "true self" when it itself is always in flux?
The notion of a "true self" you see would suggest a one, unmoving and unchanging form of personal being and identity. That there is an ultimate self hidden beneath all of the constructs that I have just mentioned above. But really, my readers, if that were the case I suppose I could say that it wouldn't be unduly premature to assume that if I were to raise a child without human contact, in a completely white and featureless room, it is only reasonable to deduce that his development and growth would constitute nothing but of his "true self". And indeed, considering such an experiment were done regardless of the moral and ethical flaw behind it, what would that "true self be like?"
However, in my facebook discussions a friend offered an opinion. He offerred, that the "true self" exists not in a sense of definedness - that is a clear picture of a person we think we are / should be / want to be - but indeed in the simplistic and yet obvious nature of the human psyche itself; reason. That the ability to reason is the one "true self" of human beings and through it enables us to construct an endless array of identities to suit our everday lives. Indeed, the notion is most complex as it would require the sundering of two rather traditionally inter-linked terms of "self" and"identity".
Indeed if such were the case, perhaps I have been lookin too superficially upon the matter and being rather overanalytical.
But I did not string you on here endlessly for no reason. I want to know what you think? Which is it?
1. Are we simply a constantly changing mass of identities and facets that is constructed through and for our experience of the environment which means that, because identities are always shifting, there is never one fixed "true self" to begin with
2. Do people have a one "true self" ? Is there really an ultimate identity hiding beneath all the other layers? In Vibha's words, if we were to peel away the layers of our onions one by one, would be find the true self lying deep within?
3. Is the true self simply, as I lastly put it nothing more than the very ability to "reason" ?
Tell me your thoughts.
*thanks to Terri, Kelly, Tim, Vibha and everyone else who offered their opinion on the subject prior to this post*
PEACE OUT
Okay, for all those of ya'll whove got this on my facebook, you can just skip this one.
So here's the thing, and it would seem that there's been rather a lot of things preying on my mind at this point.
Basically, we read this novel for "contemporary fiction" class this week and it was Ishiguro's book titled The Remains of The Day which is this story about a butler trying to come to terms with how and where his lfie has brought him at the remains of his days. Well, it's really quite a good book if you were to ask my opinion and I would suggest that you actually purchase this one and read it for yourself, and the point of this post really is to address a discussion we had on one point of the novel in class so I shall refrain from providing you with a summary of the story and allow you to (if you choose so) enjoy it yourself. But where was I?
Oh, right.
Dr. Andrew had mentioned something abouth ow Stevens (that's the butler by the way) was so engrossed with his "mask" of a butler that he had come to loose what Dr. Andrew had so cryptically labelled as "his true self". So my point is, is there even such a thing as a "true self" ?
Personally I find the entire notion a little hard to believe. Oh, I suppose we have our little inclinations towards one thing or another, and I guess one might say that human beings excercise what is, to a certain extent in some's opinions, free will. But aren't those all in some way or rather affected by external environmental factors? Typically, isn't everything simply some sort of "mask" that we have constructed?
But to prove my point perhaps an example is needed that I can provide quite easily. One only need to finish the following sentence "I am..." to see what I mean.
Here's what I got;
I am a male
I am a brother
I am an environmentalis
I am a Pisces
I am a Student
I am a Wiccan
I am a singer
I am an optimist
I am human.
And so on and so forth. The list of course would be most imeasurable if I were to list down every single thing and thought that I am. But if you were to consider a collection of such sentences as simple, and rather crude I must admit, definitions of the "self", then perhaps you can also see how perhaps everything that you had just made a list of is in someway constructed for you based on something else?
Even seemingly flawless identification markers like religioun, political ideology and philosophical beliefs cannot be counted upon as aspects of the "true self" because they too, were after all imposed upon us in some way or another, whether it be through birth or education or even the media! Even notions of ethnicity, like "chineseness" or "malayness" are in someway human constructs of the ages.
For example, I consider myself to be an optimist by outlook, but one can always attribute such an outlook invariably to my upbringing perhaps, something I picked up from my parents, or indeed the group of friends I choose to hang out with.
So, in a sense I would venture as far to say that everything that we are is in some way or another involved with something else that is external. And we have either adopted these external factors, or reacted to them in such a way that they appear in coherence with our everyday lives. Of course, one could argue that the identity of "human" is somewhat of a fixed "true self" though I would strongly contest against an overencompassing classification as a "species" that connotes identity.
So, in relation to what we've read in The Remains of The Day, if his philosophy on "greatness" and his position as a butler were simlpy masks that devoured the "true self" of the butler Stevens, then what indeed would that "true" Stevens have been like? Do you see my point now dear readers?
Place the question amongst yourselves. If your life philosophy, personal beliefs and your position as wife, mother, brother or whatever are shown to be "masks" that you have adopted for yourselves, then indeed, where or what is the "real" you? A complicated notion, no doubt but one I trust, you all here have the capacity to ponder on.
But back to my point. I am rather confused then to what some people might consider as a one "true self", or indeed if others may consider that it at all exists? As you might recollect, from my earlier sentiments, I myself do not hold much regard for such statements or notions (as romantic as they are and as much a fan of romanticism as I consider myself to be) simply on the grounds that who we are and what we think are often than not constituted by various things we pick up from and through our interraction with our environment. In a sense, a person typically constructs his identity to suit his or her own lifestyle and indeed, changes it when the need arises. How then, in this sense, can Identity be considered a one "true self" when it itself is always in flux?
The notion of a "true self" you see would suggest a one, unmoving and unchanging form of personal being and identity. That there is an ultimate self hidden beneath all of the constructs that I have just mentioned above. But really, my readers, if that were the case I suppose I could say that it wouldn't be unduly premature to assume that if I were to raise a child without human contact, in a completely white and featureless room, it is only reasonable to deduce that his development and growth would constitute nothing but of his "true self". And indeed, considering such an experiment were done regardless of the moral and ethical flaw behind it, what would that "true self be like?"
However, in my facebook discussions a friend offered an opinion. He offerred, that the "true self" exists not in a sense of definedness - that is a clear picture of a person we think we are / should be / want to be - but indeed in the simplistic and yet obvious nature of the human psyche itself; reason. That the ability to reason is the one "true self" of human beings and through it enables us to construct an endless array of identities to suit our everday lives. Indeed, the notion is most complex as it would require the sundering of two rather traditionally inter-linked terms of "self" and"identity".
Indeed if such were the case, perhaps I have been lookin too superficially upon the matter and being rather overanalytical.
But I did not string you on here endlessly for no reason. I want to know what you think? Which is it?
1. Are we simply a constantly changing mass of identities and facets that is constructed through and for our experience of the environment which means that, because identities are always shifting, there is never one fixed "true self" to begin with
2. Do people have a one "true self" ? Is there really an ultimate identity hiding beneath all the other layers? In Vibha's words, if we were to peel away the layers of our onions one by one, would be find the true self lying deep within?
3. Is the true self simply, as I lastly put it nothing more than the very ability to "reason" ?
Tell me your thoughts.
*thanks to Terri, Kelly, Tim, Vibha and everyone else who offered their opinion on the subject prior to this post*
PEACE OUT
