I think the best quote from Chris (the hermit) was:
"Solitude did increase my perception. But here’s the tricky thing—when I applied my increased perception to myself, I lost my identity. With no audience, no one to perform for, I was just there. There was no need to define myself; I became irrelevant. The moon was the minute hand, the seasons the hour hand. I didn’t even have a name. I never felt lonely. To put it romantically: I was completely free."
The idea of how our identity and personality really only exist in the collective minds of other people is cool. In isolation, we are freed of the slots that other people try to fit us into and do not need definition, because each and every one of us already "know" who we are.
A part of me wants to believe that at least a small portion of our identity isn't defined by other peoples perception of us. Humans are social creatures, but I'd like to think there are attributes that I have "internally" that define me as a person. When we are "free" of the slots other people place us in, how do you define yourself? Are you caring if you have no one else to care for? Considerate when your the only person to be considerate too. . .
I think the line is drawn between what you have done and what you would do. Morals vs past. A drastic example would be choosing to save another person's life or your own. People may think that, based on your past decisions, you would sway one way, but only you know what your true actions and reasoning is. When you are left without society, you only have your morals.
I would argue that morals are just a reflection of empathy. Something is bad because if it happened to you, you would feel horrible about it. The ability to put yourself in another person's situation and empathize is what determines right or wrong. If you were living in isolation, how would you empathize? Perhaps with other animals?
Isn't the society you're brought up in a huge catalyst for your moral choices? Easiest example that comes to mind is Middle East versus Western cultures. If you ask either side, they would both claim the other is morally corrupt. Someone going into the forest would take their moral values with them as they were. Maybe over time they would change as the lack of societal influence on them dissipated, but going in as a hermit, the previous influence would still be there. . .
I think the best quote from Chris (the hermit) was:
"Solitude did increase my perception. But here’s the tricky thing—when I applied my increased perception to myself, I lost my identity. With no audience, no one to perform for, I was just there. There was no need to define myself; I became irrelevant. The moon was the minute hand, the seasons the hour hand. I didn’t even have a name. I never felt lonely. To put it romantically: I was completely free."
The idea of how our identity and personality really only exist in the collective minds of other people is cool. In isolation, we are freed of the slots that other people try to fit us into and do not need definition, because each and every one of us already "know" who we are.
A part of me wants to believe that at least a small portion of our identity isn't defined by other peoples perception of us. Humans are social creatures, but I'd like to think there are attributes that I have "internally" that define me as a person. When we are "free" of the slots other people place us in, how do you define yourself? Are you caring if you have no one else to care for? Considerate when your the only person to be considerate too. . .
I think the line is drawn between what you have done and what you would do. Morals vs past. A drastic example would be choosing to save another person's life or your own. People may think that, based on your past decisions, you would sway one way, but only you know what your true actions and reasoning is. When you are left without society, you only have your morals.
I would argue that morals are just a reflection of empathy. Something is bad because if it happened to you, you would feel horrible about it. The ability to put yourself in another person's situation and empathize is what determines right or wrong. If you were living in isolation, how would you empathize? Perhaps with other animals?
Isn't the society you're brought up in a huge catalyst for your moral choices? Easiest example that comes to mind is Middle East versus Western cultures. If you ask either side, they would both claim the other is morally corrupt. Someone going into the forest would take their moral values with them as they were. Maybe over time they would change as the lack of societal influence on them dissipated, but going in as a hermit, the previous influence would still be there. . .
Does anyone know, off hand, any books that explore this idea? I'm looking for something new to read.
Lovely