The Self as Spirit: Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Subjectivity

Introduction: Questioning the Self

Who is the self, and what is the self? These are among the most discussed and controversial questions in philosophy. This essay aims to answer these questions. I will first offer an analysis of what I define the self to be. I will then connect my analysis to parts of Blaise Pascal's Pensées as well as to Søren Kierkegaard's Sickness unto Death. It will be argued that the self is a spirit. As a spirit, the self should be detached from all objective factors because the objective world is not a good indicator for defining the self. Objectivity is a suitable mechanism for understanding the natural world and how it is experienced, but it is impossible to define the self in an objective way — because the self is always in the process of defining itself.

A Thought Experiment on Identity

I was resting on my bed, thinking deeply about what my understanding of the self is. The first things that came to mind were the standard claims — "The self is you," or "It is I." But who or what is this "I"? Is it the fact that I can think, breathe, and move? I think not. In order to see what the self means, I must dig deeper and go below the surface. With that in mind, I decided to conduct an experiment on myself.

I would never intentionally murder another human being. This is a fairly general claim, and most people would agree. It can therefore be asserted that, at the very least, I am a type of person who cares about dignity and morality — traits that are part of who I am. Then I realized: if I had grown up in an atmosphere in which not engaging in murder were considered "immoral," I would most likely participate in it. After all, I am a moral person, which is why, in that scenario, I would murder. Being moral and decent as defined in the first scenario would not be who I am in the second scenario.

These are simply claims I have come to believe, not to know with certainty. Hence, in order to understand myself and who I am, I need to escape the objective domain and gain access to my own subjective side. The subjective side may of course include morality and decency. What must we do, then, in order to see who the self truly is? It is best to start from the ground up — to wipe away all the terms and labels we have come to take for granted. Many of our beliefs are highly dependent on and fixed to notions such as culture or upbringing. This is why a ground-up approach is needed: to bring all of these into question and begin fresh. What is required is an anti-essentialist methodology, a kind of thinking that resists determinism.

Subjectivity, Relativism, and the Limits of Objectivity

The concepts of Kantianism, communism, and religion all have their criteria for what constitutes the correct belief system and actions. Kantianism, for instance, holds that an act is right if the will is good, and that the maxim guiding it must be universalizable so that all could agree upon its morality. Yet all such systems are, in the end, just that — systems. Their guidelines and principles cannot always apply to concrete, lived situations. What we must do, then, is look at our own particular situation. We must turn to the self and invent ourselves. We must be individuals. I am a strong supporter of relativism: I view belief systems, and how we define the self, as bound to a variety of influential factors.

I must clarify that I am not discrediting the objective world. Objectivity is a suitable mechanism for managing and sustaining human life — it places boundaries and moderation on human action. Unfortunately, however, objectivity also causes a certain leveling in society. It takes away the uniqueness of the human self and makes our thoughts and desires generic and generalized. The majority of people around us aim for the same things: a good job, a good education. Because we share the same goals, we lack the uniqueness and capacity to invent ourselves. We all conform to the same norms.

I am not advocating for immoral acts. Rather, I am proposing that while we should conform to the objective world at times and follow some norms, a balance is needed so that we do not lose sight of our individuality. When I look at my own life and the diverse acts I engage in, there are times when I am lost as to what I really want versus what I am expected to want. Arising from influences like norms and family pressure, I want to go to law school, get married, and have children. How marvelous such a thing would be, I think. But is it what I truly desire, or is it what I have been told to desire? Have the planning of the future and the weight of the past deterred my ability to reflect on what I really want? The self — the real self — is that which cannot be limited to human behavior and rationalism.

Conclusion: Living in the Moment vs. Merely Hoping

It can therefore be inferred that Pascal claims we have the inability to be in the present. We are always thinking of the future or the past because we are anxious and fearful of the passage of time (172). We know we will eventually die, and so we desperately try to avoid confronting that fact. This is detrimental to our lives, since we are never fully in the moment. We become unable to enjoy the moment that "fully belongs to us" and instead "wander in different areas of time" (172). Therefore, we are never truly living — only hoping. Searching, but never achieving.