Negative Philosophy
Over the last months I have been reading articles and books on the subject of philosophy. I've come to the conclusion that humankind's love of negativity extends to our ideas and theories on the subject of life itself and how one should find their way through it. Just as our media thrives on wars, disease, crime, bankruptcy, accidents it turns out that modern day philosophers tend to write their theories in the context of what misfortune humans are involved in - harassment, family disputes, divorce, depression, various types of losses. It seems easier to draw a theory to its conclusion using a desperate situation rather than abstracting the actual situation, or, even better, taking a positive action to arrive to the theoretical conclusion.
The best example that springs to mind is that the ego is considered negative even when its actions are positive. Philosophers will state that the ego is in control of your self and that your true self cannot thrive so long as the ego is in control. This is considered negative. But, when you look at the consequences of the ego's actions beyond the individual (ie. look at the result of its actions on a larger group) what might be negative for the individual is in fact positive for the larger entity. For example, someone might give to a charity not because they believe in the cause of the charity or have any level of empathy for those who receive its services but rather because by giving money to the charity the individual feels good and believes they will be looked upon positively by peers. So the ego is at work here. For the individual giving the money was egotistical however for society the ego's actions were positive.
If we are meant to look at things holistically and in an integrated fashion maybe we should forget about being so self-centred and egocentric in our desire to understand the ego! ;-)
I surmise that the earth would be in far worse shape than it is if it were not for egos who are trying to make it greener, safer, cleaner. Who give to charities. People who may be acting because they want to look good in addition to truly helping the world. Why are we led to believe that if we all were true to ourselves that all would actually be better. Without the ego it may be that we would be worse off!
Let me restate my conclusion another way now. There are situations where the ego is destructive, but there are many cases where the ego is actually creative. When someone commits a crime we blame the ego. But if the same person helped someone to cross the street we immediately think it was a heartfelt, truer, deeper action one not controlled by the ego. Why is that? Because we are a society that tends to ignore the good and give meaning to the bad by giving it much attention through theories and analysis. We fix the bad rather than amplify the good.
The self-help authors, by focusing on the negative, are in fact perpetuating the negative image that man has of itself. For readers that are not going through divorce, harassment, family feuds or some loss their books will have more difficulty hitting the sweet spot and having a true impact.
Comments