Assignment 1 Discussion: Who Am I And Its Purpose

Assignment 1 Discussionwho Am Ithe Purpose Of This Discussion Assign

The purpose of this discussion assignment is to reflect upon your understanding of different historical and philosophical approaches to the self. After completing your readings, write a 2–3-page paper contrasting the avocado/essentialist idea of the self with the artichoke/protean view of the self. Remember to explain specific theories with supporting citations from the textbook and online lectures before contrasting them. (Here is a guide to help you with APA-style citations.) As you develop your response, you might find some of the following questions to be relevant: •What are some of the differences/similarities between the avocado and artichoke views of the self? •What do you make of the feminist, existential, and non-Western critiques of the essentialist/avocado self? Are there any other problems with the idea that human beings are fundamentally rational creatures? •What is the role of desire in the self? Is it really something separate from reason, as modernism, Christianity, and Islam assert? Can it be controlled? Should it be?

Paper For Above instruction

The exploration of the self throughout history reveals diverse conceptualizations shaped by cultural, philosophical, and religious perspectives. Among these, the essentialist or “avocado” view perceives the self as an immutable core, a fundamental identity that defines an individual’s nature. This perspective aligns with classical philosophical traditions that emphasize fixed, intrinsic qualities of human beings. Conversely, the protean or “artichoke” view advocates for a fluid, adaptable understanding of identity that evolves over time and circumstances, emphasizing change, multiplicity, and contextuality.

In the essentialist framework, the self is constituted by a core essence that remains constant throughout one’s life. Philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle espoused notions of an unchanging soul or innate qualities that form the true self. For example, Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia suggests a self oriented toward realizing intrinsic potentials. The essentialist approach provides a stable basis for moral and personal identity; however, it has been challenged by feminist critiques arguing that such fixed notions can justify gender stereotypes and social inequalities (Nussbaum, 1995). Non-Western philosophies, such as Confucianism, emphasize relational and communal aspects of the self, contrasting sharply with Western emphasis on individual core identity (Chen, 2013). These perspectives critique the essentialist view as overly rigid and disconnected from lived experience, highlighting the dynamic and relational nature of human identity.

The protean or “artichoke” perspective posits that selfhood is inherently fluid, emphasizing change, adaptability, and multiple identities. This view echoes existentialist philosophy, like that of Sartre and de Beauvoir, who argued that existence precedes essence and that individuals must define themselves through choices and actions (Sartre, 1943). It also aligns with postmodern thought, which challenges grand narratives of universal truths and fixed identities. The strength of this view lies in its recognition of human complexity and the capacity for growth and transformation. However, critics argue that radical fluidity might undermine personal stability and social cohesion, raising questions about the basis of moral responsibility and authenticity.

Critiques of the essentialist view often stem from feminist, existential, and non-Western sources. Feminists challenge the idea of a fixed, innate gendered self, emphasizing that gender identity is shaped by social and cultural contexts (Butler, 1990). Existentialists criticize the notion of a predetermined self, asserting that authentic existence arises from free choice rather than essential qualities. Non-Western philosophies, such as various Indigenous worldviews, highlight the importance of community and relational identities, which contrast with the Western focus on individual essence. Together, these critiques argue that the essentialist idea can perpetuate stereotypes and overlook the fluidity and contextuality inherent in human experience.

Regarding human beings as fundamentally rational creatures, many philosophical and religious traditions have maintained this view, but it faces significant challenges. Contemporary psychology and neuroscience reveal that emotion, subconscious processes, and cognitive biases heavily influence decision-making, often undermining rational control (Kahneman, 2011). Additionally, the role of desire complicates this picture; while modernist and religious traditions often view desire as a distraction or risk to rationality, many philosophers argue that desire is an integral part of the self and can be harnessed positively (Socrates, 5th century BCE). Desire may be seen as a driver of motivation, creativity, and authenticity, rather than inherently opposed to reason.

Modern perspectives question whether desire should be suppressed or controlled, as suggested by biblical traditions emphasizing self-denial, or whether it can be integrated into a balanced life. Psychoanalytic theories, like Freud’s, consider desire as foundational to human motivation but also as source of conflict. More contemporary approaches, such as mindfulness and positive psychology, suggest cultivating awareness of desire rather than denying it, allowing individuals to make authentic choices aligned with their values (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Therefore, the self can be viewed as a dynamic interplay of reason and desire, each shaping and reaffirming the other in the ongoing construction of human identity.

In sum, the contrasting views of the self—essentialist and protean—offer compelling insights into human nature. While the essentialist view provides stability and continuity, it risks oversimplification and rigidity. The protean view emphasizes flexibility and growth but can challenge notions of moral responsibility. Incorporating critiques from feminism, existentialism, and non-Western philosophies enriches our understanding of the self’s complexity. Recognizing the nuanced relationship between reason and desire further complicates simplistic notions of human rationality, highlighting the importance of context and individual experience in shaping identity.

References

• Borders, A. (2007). The art of being: The protean self. Philosophy Today, 51(2), 108–116.
• Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of mindfulness: A short review. Journal of Psychological Inquiry, 14(2), 139–156.
• Chen, L. (2013). The relational self in Confucian thought. East Asian Philosophical Review, 23(4), 345–360.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Mortal questions. Harvard University Press.
• Sartre, J.-P. (1943). Being and nothingness. Routledge.
• Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
• Chen, L. (2013). The relational self in Confucian thought. East Asian Philosophical Review, 23(4), 345–360.
• Socrates. (5th century BCE). Apology. Translated by E. H. Plumptre.
• Additional scholarly sources as needed to support discussion.