Arne Naess Self Realization


Arne Naess gives us a different approach of how we look at ourselves in the ecological world. In the passage he lays out six points that explain his argument in terms of self-realization what that means, and its relation to the land. He breaks down the term “ego” and how we emphasize the self. He talks about how we confuse our self with the narrow ego, and how we are so much more than that. The narrow ego according to Naess is when we try to identify “I” when pointing to our body, but we cannot substitute “my body” for “I”. You cannot identify yourself or even your ego with your body. When we come to terms with self-realization, there is a broadening and deepening of self. This process leads us to being happy and realizing a deeper meaning of life. However self realization isn’t a solo process, this is hindered if the self-realization of others with whom we identify is hindered. He introduces the concept of the ecological self; the ecological self of a person is that with which this person identifies. Naess states that we see ourselves in others. Therefore the widening and deepening of our selves can achieve altruism. We achieve altruism through the dutiful and moral consideration of others.
Naess puts emphasis on the relations that we share with other people and beings to better understand our self. He then brings up the idea of identification, to add to his argument that identification elicits intense empathy. He gives an example, about the death of a flea, and how this elicits emotion in him. Naess states “I see myself in the flea”. In this example identification elicits intense empathy. He says there must be identification in order for there to be compassion, and among humans solidarity. Naess then tells us that we need an environmental ethics. However, us humans often believe we are sacrificing our interest in order to show love for nature. Naess states that this perception is treacherous and that instead we should self identify with nature, and come to see our interest served through conservation. He believes that self-realization with ego trip manifests a vast underestimation of the human self. As humans we should share with al life on earth and ecosystems this idea of deepening identification. We cannot underestimate ourselves a humans with simply thinking of ourselves us as just us. We can achieve joy if we look at the ecosystem and the earth as a relation to something bigger than ego, when we protect the environment as if were protecting ourselves.
I agree with Naess that our perspectives of ourselves in terms of nature, is deeper than what we think. Living in a modern western civilization we are constantly concerned with “our self” and we cultivate this bubble where we separate out happiness and wants from the betterment of our environment. Instead we should bridge this disconnect, by self-identifying with the earth, nature, and other living beings around us. We should do this because until with engage in this empathetic relationship with the environment, we won’t feel the need to protect it or salvage it.  I think this is harder for the average city dweller to do, because were so detached from nature. However, in terms of conservation I believe looking at nature and other living forms, which we share this earth with, from this perspective will benefit us in the long run. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kenneth Goodpaster: On Moral Consideration

Kenneth Goodpaster leads us through many principles and perceptions of different philosophers to tackle the overall question, “ to whom principles of morality apply?” In order to begin to develop an answer for this question, we must first understand the framework of moral consideration, and then proceed to the application of this framework. Goodpaster presents to us distinct viewpoints on the sorts of entities that can and should receive moral consideration. He believes that neither rationality nor the capacity to experience pleasure and pain are necessary conditions on moral considerability. Instead, the simple act of being alive, for Goodpaster is a plausible criterion in terms of moral consideration. He believes that the universe of moral consideration is more complex that just individual persons and their joys ad sorrows. Goodpaster begins to draw the distinction between rights and considerability. He believes that the notion of rights are more specific that those of considerbaili...
Read more

Class #23: Heather Davis and Zoe Todd, “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene”

Heather Davis and Zoe Todd point out the failure of the Anthropocene, as a name to be assigned to today’s epoch. The start date that is being chosen for the Anthropocene is mid twentieth century 1964.  They are drawing connections saying that the Anthropocene, is explicitly linked to the beginnings of colonization. By linking the Anthropocene with colonization, it draws attention to the violence at its core, and calls for the consideration of Indigenous philosophies and processes of Indigenous self-governance as a necessary political corrective, alongside the self-determination of other communities and societies violently impacted by the white supremacist, colonial, and capitalist logics instantiated in the origins of the Anthropocene. They feel that the Anthropocene betrays itself in its name: in its reassertion of universality, it implicitly aligns itself with the colonial era. Heather Davis and Zoe Todd propose a 1610 start date to coincide with colonization p...
Read more

Rolston, Duties to Ecosystems

Holmes Rolston talks about the separate duties that humans and organisms owe to the ecosystem through distinct lenses. He states that the apparent harmony in ecosystems is superficial. Like business, politics, and sports ecosystems thrive on competition. He talks about how environmental necessity involves conflict, selection pressure, niche fittedness, environmental support, etc. These section pressures will routinely drive adaptation and counter adaptation; therefor the ecosystem is forcing a check on competitions by forced cooperation.   He believes us humans need to see that, an ecosystem has no centeredness at all, and we ought to simply value organisms for their evolutionary journey and purpose. The members of the biotic community have no shared needs; each species is individualistic in the sense that they are focused on the needs of their own survival.   He further explains how an ecosystem is far from being a satisfactory community, instead it is rath...
Read more