Descartes was Wrong: a Person is a Person through Others

4
572

From Aeon: For the most part, the field of scientific psychology has adopted a Cartesian, individualistic understanding of the self. However, it is more likely that selfhood is forged through one’s interactions with others.

We need others in order to evaluate our own existence and construct a coherent self-image. Think of that luminous moment when a poet captures something you’d felt but had never articulated; or when you’d struggled to summarise your thoughts, but they crystallised in conversation with a friend. Bakhtin believed that it was only through an encounter with another person that you could come to appreciate your own unique perspective and see yourself as a whole entity.”

Article →­

Support MIA

MIA relies on the support of its readers to exist. Please consider a donation to help us provide news, essays, podcasts and continuing education courses that explore alternatives to the current paradigm of psychiatric care. Your tax-deductible donation will help build a community devoted to creating such change.

$
Select Payment Method
Personal Info

Credit Card Info
This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.

Billing Details

Donation Total: $20

4 COMMENTS

  1. Does ‘they fucked, therefore I am’ work?

    I have problems with any approach that involves surrendering to the crowd. My book of inspiration, beyond Descartes, is Homer’s Ulysses. Be forewarned, it is not a friendly world out there, not unless you happen to be a fool. There are plenty of opportunities for deception, and especially self-deception, that others are not going to help you out of, but which they may help get you deeper into.

    Do you know your place in the world? Happily, I don’t know mine. Donald J. Trump can take a flying leap off his notorious Trump Tower for all I care, and the world would be a richer place as a result.

  2. Quote of the title of this MIA piece:
    “Descartes was Wrong: a Person is a Person through Others”.

    Descartes? Which one?

    Donald Descartes?
    Hillary Descartes?
    Bill Descartes?
    Ivanka Descartes?
    George W. Descartes?

    Oh! You mean… René Descartes, the mathematician?
    1596-1650… that dude that died more than 367 years ago?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes

    Quote: His best known philosophical statement is:
    “Cogito ergo sum”
    “I think, therefore I am”
    … found in part IV of Discourse on the Method (1637).

    Well… well…
    By the title: “Descartes was Wrong: a Person is a Person through Others”.

    One could be lead to think Descartes wrote (at 1637), something like:
    “I DO OBEY THE-OPINION-MAKERS ORDERS, THEREFORE I AM A PERSON”.

    But people were WAY less stupid at 1637… than we are at 2017, it seems.

    Is Descartes a DSM author?
    Was Descartes a psychiatrist?
    Was Descartes a good organizer?
    Are Descartes mathematics theorems quoted to people diagnosed by the DSM?

    NO. NO. NO. NO.
    …………..

    Is nonsense (old nonsense), a shoot in both feet… to look at Descartes for answers.
    Why does MIA does this? Goes tottaly against of what should be done.

    Pharma/ APA/ NAMI (and wannabe Namis)/ Families/ brainless-Sheep-Comunities… are the massive group forces that are used… against us.

    And the answer at MIA?
    To obey/ submit more to the “assertive treatment power” of the comunityv(OTHERS).

    The loudspeaker: “For your own protection, a injection of Haldol to table 5, please. All is well.”
    …………..

    Descartes will divide us. Keeping us impotent and aimless.
    Health professionals are compact (united). SZ are like: “everyone for himself/ herself”.

    Blind, blind, blind…

    Is by pieces like this article (and associated lack of brains), that Pharma rules, psichiatrits are rich, DSM sells like hotcakes, and we have peer supporters to keep the sheep happy (and divided).

  3. We’re all arguing over something called “DUALITY”. I’d suggest you ALL do some basic reading in general Buddhist discussions of duality. It is NOT EITHER “the group/society”, *OR*”the individual”. It is BOTH society *AND* the individual. You can’t really understand the individual without at least *some* understanding of the society from which that individual comes. And you can’t have a full and complete understanding of any society or group, without at least *some* understanding of the individuals that society or group produces. Yes, sometimes we can discuss one or the other while ignoring the other or the one. But ultimately, it is ALWAYS BOTH. After all, you did NOT teach yourself to read these words all by yourself, did you? So, who ELSE is helping you read them now? It’s all well and good for the “EGO” of Descartes to claim that he is because he thinks, but he still thinks in the language his parents taught him to speak, which *they* learned from *their* parents, – Descartes grandparents, who in turn learned it from *their* parents, etc.,….