Ownership is a many faceted and generally
misunderstood concept that has been elucidated by dozens of thinkers throughout
western history. These thinkers tend to define ownership in relation to a sense
of self that is even less understood than the ownership that supposedly proceeds
it. In the following, the reader will see a western interpretation of ownership
and its inherently meaningless inclusion with a sense of self.
The
average individual in the western world has been reared in a society that
induces massive consumerism in all ages from toddlers to the aged. In the years
that divide these two age groups the western citizen is coerced through
societal pressure to have as much as possible. From this having of object
foreign to the body does the idea of self emanates. Westerners tend, in
general, to derive their sense of self from the objects around them. What they
fail to realize is that the objects that are being bought are the ideas of
someone else. The products, ranging from cars to toys, are the designs of some
other person. While a person might own something in the legal sense of own a
product, to derive self-worth or a sense of self from this item would be
detrimental to the individual. It is detrimental in the idea that said person
is merely owning a single copy of the item, rather than owning the concept of
the item itself. The original designer would “own” the item in its most total
sense and would, would more capably, derive a sense of self from that item.
Even in this derivation of self-worth there remain problems.
As Sartre
points out in his ideas regarding his waiter in the café, the sense of self
that one derives from items or occupations is dependent on how the individual
interprets said items to reflect on their idea of self. Here it is the
individual’s interpretation that creates a sense of self rather than the item
itself. While this is certainly a more nuanced view of the problem, it does not
solve the problem of things outside the self reflecting an actuality of the
self. In Sartre’s view the human will to create a sense of self in dependent on
the individual, as it should be. Where he digresses is in the acquiescence to
outside forces forming a persons will. A western citizen, cultured and grown in
a world dedicated to materialism and consumerism, has little choice in their
concept of self. The outside forces are, at least according to Sartre’s line of
thought, so burdensome that the individual in some sense relinquishes their own
created individual for the image that a society drapes upon them. People, in
general, feel content to fulfill the roles that are cast upon them. This
therefore is not the way to define self and is implausible due to several factors.
Chief
among these factors is the willingness to let things outside the body define
the body itself. If one holds a non-metaphysical understanding of the world and
the things in it, (ie, that one rejects the dualistic nature of platonic forms
and other such ‘informers’ of the world) then one must ask why something that
is foreign to a body has the capability to define that body itself. The body,
and hence the self as a product of said body, can only be defined by what is
within. People would rather define themselves by what they are not, ie anything
outside the body. This however is just as detrimental to the understanding of
self. Definition of self through negation, ie what is outside the body, does
not define what self is but rather what self it not. For example, the idea of
self is contingent upon the body. If it is contingent upon the body for its
primary existence then it should derive its existential meaning from the thing
it is derivative of, in this case the body itself. This is much the case with
many things. Take for instance the idea of a tree. When lumber is harvested
from a tree the original idea, existential meaning, of the lumber was to
sustain the tree. It has simply been repurposed. The repurposing of the tree
into lumber does not nullify its primary existential meaning of supporting its
original body. Therefore we can still define lumber as something that was in
existence to support the tree it originally come from. The same can be said of
the self. Its original purpose is to support the body in which it resides,
almost as a soul. However, unlike a soul its existence is completely contingent
on the body. As it is contingent on the body for both its creation and
continued existence, the body must, by necessity provide the self its primary
meaning.
Therefore,
the sense of self that one cultivates can not be derived from anything external
to the body. These externalities include but a certainly not limited to, the
products and creations of a modern world, the ideas that one creates with external
input rather that a priori. Sense of
self is predicated on the body and therefore must be derivative of the body and
the body alone.
