PDA

View Full Version : becoming who you are


JaBlue
05-30-2005, 03:49 AM
philosophy majors: what the [censored] does this mean?

Aytumious
05-30-2005, 03:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
philosophy majors: what the [censored] does this mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Self-actualization.

mmbt0ne
05-30-2005, 03:53 AM
Acheiving a feeling of self importance by reading works by authors unknown to 99% of the population, and then thinking that makes you more adept at analyzing why your life sucks.

ClaytonN
05-30-2005, 03:53 AM
Ding!

Stuey
05-30-2005, 03:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
becoming who you are

[/ QUOTE ]

Took me so long to get him under control no chance I'm letting him loose now. Thank me later

mantasm
05-30-2005, 03:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
philosophy majors: what the [censored] does this mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Self-actualization.

[/ QUOTE ]

what the [censored] does this mean?

JaBlue
05-30-2005, 04:00 AM
this does not answer my question

Phildo
05-30-2005, 04:04 AM
For philosophy majors, it involves learning to operate a cash register.

InchoateHand
05-30-2005, 04:04 AM
Analytic philosophers would have nothing to say to you on this and Continental wonks would probably smirk and answer condescendingly and cryptically--something along the lines of no "you," etc. etc.

My underenlightened off-the-cuff 4 am response: What the [censored]?

How could anyone, ever, do anything that isn't already "who they are?" If you do not believe in a transhistorical subject operating in tune with a universalizing destiny, there is simply no way to "become who you are."

And Abraham Maslow is about as much of a philosopher as Carl Jung.

Aytumious
05-30-2005, 04:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
this does not answer my question

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does. Self-actualization means to develop to your full potential. As a human, you are born with certain potentialities and "becoming who you are" simply means to explore and develop the natural abilities you were born with; living up to ones fate.

ClaytonN
05-30-2005, 04:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
this does not answer my question

[/ QUOTE ]

Becoming aware of your strengths, your faults, and not bullsh*tting yourself into the grave.

Being yourself. And stuff.

Stuey
05-30-2005, 04:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
this does not answer my question

[/ QUOTE ]

Serious question?

Read it if you got the stomach for it.

non religious thoughts on self-actualization (http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html)

InchoateHand
05-30-2005, 04:12 AM
He asked for "philosophers" not pop-psychobabble.

Aytumious
05-30-2005, 04:15 AM
[ QUOTE ]
He asked for "philosophers" not pop-psychobabble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, captain. But my answer is still correct whether you choose to label it as "pop-psychobabble." Is Nietzsche enough of a philosopher for you, because it is basically his definition, too. Whether someone like Maslow develops an idiotic system that takes it to some absurd extremes is beside the point.

JaBlue
05-30-2005, 04:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this does not answer my question

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does. Self-actualization means to develop to your full potential. As a human, you are born with certain potentialities and "becoming who you are" simply means to explore and develop the natural abilities you were born with; living up to ones fate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems way too easy

nothumb
05-30-2005, 04:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]

Sure it does. Self-actualization means to develop to your full potential. As a human, you are born with certain potentialities and "becoming who you are" simply means to explore and develop the natural abilities you were born with; living up to ones fate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saul is right. You guys are talking about developmental psychology right now, not philosophy. And self-actualization is more about reaching a level of confidence and social/material stability than some sort of philosophical awakening. Basically in Maslow's hierarchy, you need to meet physical needs, shelter/safety needs, and social comfort in order to 'self-actualize,' which is the most poorly defined and amorphous term in his system. IMHO. Basically he was pointing out that the difficulty in social work and clinical psychology is that most people (particularly children) have so many layers of insecurity and need that it prevents them from even realizing that much about themselves as people.

NT

JaBlue
05-30-2005, 04:17 AM
I didn't remember who Maslow was until this post, and his self-actualization is NOT what I'm asking about

nothumb
05-30-2005, 04:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, captain. But my answer is still correct whether you choose to label it as "pop-psychobabble." Is Nietzsche enough of a philosopher for you, because it is basically his definition, too. Whether someone like Maslow develops an idiotic system that takes it to some absurd extremes is beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche and Maslow have two very different perspectives on this one. Your answer doesn't really contain anything specific to, or at the core of, Nietzsche's philosophy.

NT

Aytumious
05-30-2005, 04:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't remember who Maslow was until this post, and his self-actualization is NOT what I'm asking about

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, tell us the philosophers you are reading and we can maybe give you a different answer, but I think you already have it.

JaBlue
05-30-2005, 04:22 AM
I'm not reading any philosophers.. that's why I'm needing help on this one. The question came from a lecture on tape that I was listening to about existentialism.

nothumb
05-30-2005, 04:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't remember who Maslow was until this post, and his self-actualization is NOT what I'm asking about

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely off the course of your question, but Maslow is actually a really useful psychologist if you're working with children or victims of neglect/abuse. I don't mean to play down his importance (the main reason I know of him is that his work is extremely relevant to my job).

NT

Aytumious
05-30-2005, 04:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, captain. But my answer is still correct whether you choose to label it as "pop-psychobabble." Is Nietzsche enough of a philosopher for you, because it is basically his definition, too. Whether someone like Maslow develops an idiotic system that takes it to some absurd extremes is beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche and Maslow have two very different perspectives on this one. Your answer doesn't really contain anything specific to, or at the core of, Nietzsche's philosophy.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I think both Jung and Maslow have a bastardized form of Nietzsche's amor fati which is basically his version of self-actualization, or would you disagree? And yes, I do realize that Nietzsche's view is quite different from Maslow in particular, although Jung was influenced greatly by Nietzsche, which comes through quite clearly especially on this point.

JaBlue
05-30-2005, 04:25 AM
I appreciate maslow from what I learned of him, but it was pretty basic and uninteresting to me when I learned it but all I learned about was his hierarchy starting with safety and ending with personal needs... anyway, I just meant to say that I am asking for a different perspective than Maslow.

nothumb
05-30-2005, 04:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but I think both Jung and Maslow have a bastardized form of Nietzsche's amor fati which is basically his version of self-actualization, or would you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know much about Jung. I don't think Maslow 'bastardized' Nietzsche at all. Superficially the two seem similar (both reached through a process of cleansing and acceptance, both representing a high level of function in man, etc) but Nietzsche doesn't say anything to us about fitting into society and building self esteem from social acceptance. If anything he has a great disdain for the common 'rabble' and its oppressive sense of equality.

These two ideas are similar only insofar as they exist in philosophies from every continent and time period. The notion of self-awakening or self-becoming, in various forms, is just about as old as the discipline itself.

NT

InchoateHand
05-30-2005, 04:38 AM
I would look into some of the more dominant theories of subjectivation.

Obviously, Foucault is the no-brainer here, most likely Discipline and Punish and/or History of Sexuality (I). In both of these "genealogical" texts Foucault explores the processes by which "subjects" are produced in the interstices, collisions and co-options attendant to a wildly proliferating array of discourses. The former text follows the construction of the self through the penal system, as well as extending the analysis first proferred in Birth of the Clinic into new terrain. One of the most interesting features of Discipline and Punish, repeated in HoS, is "self-on-self" subjectivation---the ways in which the "self" reifies and re-creates the "self."

You could also swing into the even-more-French terrain of the ecole lacanienne, and follow a semiotic discussion of "selfhood."

If you really hate yourself, you could always read Habermas, the silly bugger.

Of greatest importance, perhaps, would be Deleuze. Do not mistake his careful commentary on his predecessors for mere "biography."

As to your question, most of the folks I read and hold truck with are not remotely convinced of the existence of a "you," certainly not as a cleary demarcated identity, and wholly suspicious of the "are."

beta1607
05-30-2005, 04:40 AM
Thread reminds me of a story my professor in college told me about a philosphy student at Berkley. Kid came into the final exam with his blue book wrote "why?" on the first line turned it in and walked out. He got an supposidly "A".

nothumb
05-30-2005, 04:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Thread reminds me of a story my professor in college told me about a philosphy student at Berkley. Kid came into the final exam with his blue book wrote "why?" on the first line turned it in and walked out. He got an supposidly "A".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and then he went to McDonald's and found a chicken head in his nuggets. Like the whole head, right there in his nuggets! Isn't that crazy?

NT

Aytumious
05-30-2005, 04:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but I think both Jung and Maslow have a bastardized form of Nietzsche's amor fati which is basically his version of self-actualization, or would you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know much about Jung. I don't think Maslow 'bastardized' Nietzsche at all. Superficially the two seem similar (both reached through a process of cleansing and acceptance, both representing a high level of function in man, etc) but Nietzsche doesn't say anything to us about fitting into society and building self esteem from social acceptance. If anything he has a great disdain for the common 'rabble' and its oppressive sense of equality.

These two ideas are similar only insofar as they exist in philosophies from every continent and time period. The notion of self-awakening or self-becoming, in various forms, is just about as old as the discipline itself.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche's psychological views had an enormous influence on both Freud and Jung, and in turn numerous others in 'humanistic psychology' such as Maslow, Adler, Horney, etc. I agree with you that Nietzsche would never say anything about conforming to societal standards -- he'd actually recommend the opposite -- but the fundamental theme of embracings ones fate and realizing your potential is straight out of Nietzsche and is fundamental to his philosophy and understanding current schools of thought, such as existentialism and what we are discussing here.

nothumb
05-30-2005, 04:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
but the fundamental theme of embracings ones fate and realizing your potential is straight out of Nietzsche

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think Nietzsche invented this you're a tard.

Yes there are common threads, yes he had a major influence on the field of psychology, no Maslow didn't 'bastardize' his ideas.

NT

InchoateHand
05-30-2005, 04:46 AM
Everytime I look at the book shelf above my screen I see "Horney Self-Analysis " and it never stops making me smile.

JaBlue
05-30-2005, 04:47 AM
I know a Berkeley kid who, in response to his midterm "prove the chair at the front of the room doesn't exist using what you've learned so far" wrote "what chair?" got 100%.

Aytumious
05-30-2005, 04:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but the fundamental theme of embracings ones fate and realizing your potential is straight out of Nietzsche

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think Nietzsche invented this you're a tard.

Yes there are common threads, yes he had a major influence on the field of psychology, no Maslow didn't 'bastardize' his ideas.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine if you don't think I'm correct, but the line of thought can clearly be traced back to Nietzshe through Freud and Jung, who are basically the grandfathers of what we are talking about here. Maslow is just a footnote in it and I'd never even heard of him until a week or so ago; quite uninteresting in my opionion. Bastardize is perhaps too strong of a word, but Maslow doesn't really say anything new.

Also, of course I don't think Nietzsche "invented" it, but he did bring the ideas we are discussing here to the foreground of modern psychological and philosophical thought.

InchoateHand
05-30-2005, 04:58 AM
Is a "supposidly A" worth as much as a "supposed A?" If so, how do either/both compare to actual grades?

Did I tell you about the time I found a rat in my McRib. I'm the reason McDs doesn't serve MCRATS anymore. Yeah, and I got like ten million dollars too. Be careful or my dad will beat up your dad.

Hey, wanna go see if we can look up the girls dresses on the monkey bars?

InchoateHand
05-30-2005, 05:00 AM
I think you are conflating admittedly porous disciplines far too easily, and against the wishes of the OP. Your uncomplicated lineage does a disservice to all the names you mention.

nothumb
05-30-2005, 05:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Maslow is just a footnote in it and I'd never even heard of him until a week or so ago; quite uninteresting in my opionion. Bastardize is perhaps too strong of a word, but Maslow doesn't really say anything new.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if you'd never heard of him he's useless. In terms of practical applicability to real social work (which I tend to weight somewhat heavily against name-dropping value and philosophical status) Maslow is very useful. As I said, I don't think he's relevant to the OP's question, which is why it's funny to me that you brought up his terminology in your own answer rather than simply mentioning Nietzsche in the first place.

But most people just fall back on Nietzsche when discussing any philosophy of the last 200 years so I guess it makes sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, of course I don't think Nietzsche "invented" it, but he did bring the ideas we are discussing here to the foreground of modern psychological and philosophical thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he made progress on the ideas of Hegel and Schopenhauer, among others, and CONTINUED the discussion of identity and meaning that had been going on for centuries. It's easy to identify him as a cornerstone of existentialism (not that he isn't) because there is little that has happened in philosophy since that's more than a few degrees removed from Nietzsche, and most people don't know his predecessors well enough to place him in a long line of proto-existential thought.

NT

Aytumious
05-30-2005, 05:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are conflating admittedly porous disciplines far too easily, and against the wishes of the OP. Your uncomplicated lineage does a disservice to all the names you mention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree we are off topic, but nothing I've typed is hard to see if you've read the authors in question. In fact, the 'uncomplicated lineage' I wrote about is basically found within the beginning pages in many of the author's books in question. None of these people deny the major influence previous thinkers had on their thoughts, which is how it has always been in the history of ideas. Freud and Jung both readily admit Nietzsche was the main influence in their ideas, and the followers of those two readily admit the debt they have to the pair.

nothumb
05-30-2005, 05:11 AM
Saul - you paid 120k for that education, don't give it away for free.

I'm going to bed.

NT

InchoateHand
05-30-2005, 05:12 AM
Clearly I haven't read any of these guys, brilliant insinuation.

Since I'm not one to be passive aggressive, I'll just address my qualms directly: you have a token understanding of the "ideas" that roll so easily off your intro-level syllabus. Shut up.

InchoateHand
05-30-2005, 05:13 AM
I'm going to the airport, but functionally same thing. I think my silence will be equally persuasive.

Aytumious
05-30-2005, 05:15 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maslow is just a footnote in it and I'd never even heard of him until a week or so ago; quite uninteresting in my opionion. Bastardize is perhaps too strong of a word, but Maslow doesn't really say anything new.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if you'd never heard of him he's useless. In terms of practical applicability to real social work (which I tend to weight somewhat heavily against name-dropping value and philosophical status) Maslow is very useful. As I said, I don't think he's relevant to the OP's question, which is why it's funny to me that you brought up his terminology in your own answer rather than simply mentioning Nietzsche in the first place.

But most people just fall back on Nietzsche when discussing any philosophy of the last 200 years so I guess it makes sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, of course I don't think Nietzsche "invented" it, but he did bring the ideas we are discussing here to the foreground of modern psychological and philosophical thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he made progress on the ideas of Hegel and Schopenhauer, among others, and CONTINUED the discussion of identity and meaning that had been going on for centuries. It's easy to identify him as a cornerstone of existentialism (not that he isn't) because there is little that has happened in philosophy since that's more than a few degrees removed from Nietzsche, and most people don't know his predecessors well enough to place him in a long line of proto-existential thought.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly was not thinking of Maslow when I responded with 'self-actualization' since my familiarity with the term comes mainly from Nietzsche and Jung. The phrase was certainly used before Maslow wrote on the topic.

I agree with your second paragraph. Nietzsche certainly didn't pull his ideas out of nowhere; he got many of them from Schopenhauer, Kant, Plato, etc. But Nietzsche is the single figure that synthesized many centuries of thought, hence his importance to the modern strains of thought we are discussing here.

Aytumious
05-30-2005, 05:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly I haven't read any of these guys, brilliant insinuation.

Since I'm not one to be passive aggressive, I'll just address my qualms directly: you have a token understanding of the "ideas" that roll so easily off your intro-level syllabus. Shut up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you have read these authors. That's why I'm surprised you are having a hard time agreeing with me. Thankfully I had good teachers in college and also had a strong desire to read and understand on my own, so "intro-level" my understanding is not.

InchoateHand
05-30-2005, 05:21 AM
I have to go the airport, otherwise I would enjoy continuing this discussion.

When someone says everything "X" is already present in everything "Y," I am immediately suspicious. I agree with connection, but stridently disagree with the conflation--and I don't think thats a minor quibble.

Sorry to drag it to the personal.

To the original poster, two accessible, very different compiliations are good places to start--I'm thinking of Rachman (ed) The Identity in Question and Copjec (ed) Supposing the Subject . Between the two of them its a nice exposure to more contemporary post-Freudian rumination on the Subject as well as more politically engaged insights on "identity."

Aytumious
05-30-2005, 05:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I have to go the airport, otherwise I would enjoy continuing this discussion.

When someone says everything "X" is already present in everything "Y," I am immediately suspicious. I agree with connection, but stridently disagree with the conflation--and I don't think thats a minor quibble.


[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken. Perhaps my tone is the thing that caused the disagreement because I think we aren't that far off in how we see things on this topic. One of my favorite philosophical topics is the history of ideas but sometimes I don't give enough credit to the authors I feel came after the fact and only elucidated what had been said previously. I probably miss out on some gems because of it.

raisins
05-30-2005, 05:36 AM
This phrase really doesn't mean much of anything to any student of philosophy. It is just a phrase that suggests growth and maturity and should probably be associated with psychology more than philosophy.

Maslow wrote a fair bit about adult maturity and what he thought that entailed. His term for it, self actualization, has a bit of recursiveness to it just like the phrase "becoming what you are" and that is probably why it was quickly mentioned.

I was browsing Amazon a couple of days ago and looking at the book _Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of the Soul_ and it uses that phrase in the description, in quotes suggesting that it's taken out of the book. I would guess that it's used here to mean that after realzing we act incongrously to what we say we believe at other times that then there is a longing for some consistency and coherency, a firm identity, and that the process of creating one is what the phrase is talking about. Seems to fit in with what I know of Nietzsche.

regards,

raisins

05-30-2005, 07:02 AM
They call me that around the Manor because I retreat to my cave to play. It's annoying because I'm a social person. (Gollum falsetto) Give me your money.

Popinjay
05-30-2005, 12:24 PM
Is Nietzsche really an existentialist? I am reading his book The Birth of Tragedy right now and it doesn't seem like he is. In it he does talk about the necessary of human suffering but that is only half of the equation. He also talks about the necessary of access to the divine through our dreams and the fusion of these "Dionysian" and "Apollinian" maxims in tragedy to overcome natural suffering thus becoming something greater in this world.

OtisTheMarsupial
05-30-2005, 05:21 PM
'becoming who you are' means:

stop posing.

jakethebake
05-30-2005, 09:46 PM
I'm pretty sure it has to do with you coming out of the closet.