On my personal journey of exploring the concept of self edification independent of religion and how it applies to my own life I've grown to perceive the concept as one that presents an impasse. This, of course, is largely owing to how I have reflected and perceived the concept in tandem with other factors. The whole thing is open to interpretation really, as are a lot of things to do with beliefs, attitudes, choices and such. But for now it is my current belief that self edification, in as much as it may be ultimately a positive process to undertake, is an age old paradox.
Janus, a Roman deity, is said to have been cursed by having two faces that always faced opposite directions to each other. As such, Janus was said to neither in a state of progressing nor regressing, he was neither coming nor going. If you abstract his dilemma as I have, in plain language and ignoring the annoying literals, you could conclude that he was essentially stuck because anything he'd set his sight on he'd inadvertently have to equally set his sights on the opposite. Get the idea?
Applying Janus' paradox to the concept of self edification subsequently and unavoidably came to me upon considering our very nature as human beings, particularly the facts that we have the autonomy and ability to develop traits independently although we are very social creatures. We are all different, we like different things, we listen to different music... most of all we value different things in almost anything we do. For example, the idea of a white lie is as old as the moral question of lying gets. One person would tell a white lie with a greater good in mind, while another would not simply because they believe lying is wrong. So, which moral route is deemed superior if one knowingly lies, say to protect another, while another chooses not to lie so as to maintain their moral integrity regardless of them consequently placing another in harms way? It is arguable that both are at equal moral footing, is it not? it's just a matter of what one values more according to their own unique set of morality considerations. This moral dilemma resonates with Janus' apparent unfortunate situation and both help to carve out my thinking on the matter of self edification.
As social creatures in most cases how we are perceived by others, how our actions affect others and a consideration of the state of our relationships with others, post our actions, all affect the way in which we behave in one way or the other. This can happen subconsciously or consciously. For example, a mother's instinct to do well for her child or buying your significant other a ticket to their favourite band's upcoming show, respectively. As such, how then is it entirely accurate to term it 'self edification'. The word "self" obviously indicates the betterment is intended for oneself. But given our social nature the idea is immediately flawed. My choice of word might be a bit too conclusive but I challenge you to give it a quick think. In bettering oneself, you and your beliefs are automatically vulnerable to being perceived as wrong in some way by someone else (see the white lie example?). We simply cannot please everyone. And to some extent, as little as it possibly could be, 'everyone' matters because of our social nature. So then, if one sets out to better themselves knowing what they come out with might not be a 'better' version of them to others, then the first defence one might have is "but I'm doing this for me and not for you", right? This essentially means you would develop a certain way to measure just how much better you perceive yourself to be getting as you go along edifying yourself and it would be a must, a guiding rule that all choices you make are driven solely by you and what you want for yourself, forsaking all else. But is it accurate to say the social element of your nature is completely forgone? is it possible for one to be absolutely devoid of the influence of their instinctive social nature? Here, the paradoxical nature manifests itself, in a small little corner of the whole thing. Self edification, with these thoughts and questions considered, in some ways may not be edification at all. At the least it could be edification in one instance and the opposite in another - Janus style.
Regardless of the answers to these questions the idea of self edification remains in the green the way I see it, guided by what I would want to achieve with myself in the midst of others. Regardless of this flaw, dilemma, paradox, whatever you want to call it, it remains worthy of all this mind numbing over-thinking that I often find myself drowning in when I think about the concept of self edification.
I suppose this is just another bit of understanding. A drop in the ocean, one might say. Or it could be nothing at all?
Janus, a Roman deity, is said to have been cursed by having two faces that always faced opposite directions to each other. As such, Janus was said to neither in a state of progressing nor regressing, he was neither coming nor going. If you abstract his dilemma as I have, in plain language and ignoring the annoying literals, you could conclude that he was essentially stuck because anything he'd set his sight on he'd inadvertently have to equally set his sights on the opposite. Get the idea?
Applying Janus' paradox to the concept of self edification subsequently and unavoidably came to me upon considering our very nature as human beings, particularly the facts that we have the autonomy and ability to develop traits independently although we are very social creatures. We are all different, we like different things, we listen to different music... most of all we value different things in almost anything we do. For example, the idea of a white lie is as old as the moral question of lying gets. One person would tell a white lie with a greater good in mind, while another would not simply because they believe lying is wrong. So, which moral route is deemed superior if one knowingly lies, say to protect another, while another chooses not to lie so as to maintain their moral integrity regardless of them consequently placing another in harms way? It is arguable that both are at equal moral footing, is it not? it's just a matter of what one values more according to their own unique set of morality considerations. This moral dilemma resonates with Janus' apparent unfortunate situation and both help to carve out my thinking on the matter of self edification.
As social creatures in most cases how we are perceived by others, how our actions affect others and a consideration of the state of our relationships with others, post our actions, all affect the way in which we behave in one way or the other. This can happen subconsciously or consciously. For example, a mother's instinct to do well for her child or buying your significant other a ticket to their favourite band's upcoming show, respectively. As such, how then is it entirely accurate to term it 'self edification'. The word "self" obviously indicates the betterment is intended for oneself. But given our social nature the idea is immediately flawed. My choice of word might be a bit too conclusive but I challenge you to give it a quick think. In bettering oneself, you and your beliefs are automatically vulnerable to being perceived as wrong in some way by someone else (see the white lie example?). We simply cannot please everyone. And to some extent, as little as it possibly could be, 'everyone' matters because of our social nature. So then, if one sets out to better themselves knowing what they come out with might not be a 'better' version of them to others, then the first defence one might have is "but I'm doing this for me and not for you", right? This essentially means you would develop a certain way to measure just how much better you perceive yourself to be getting as you go along edifying yourself and it would be a must, a guiding rule that all choices you make are driven solely by you and what you want for yourself, forsaking all else. But is it accurate to say the social element of your nature is completely forgone? is it possible for one to be absolutely devoid of the influence of their instinctive social nature? Here, the paradoxical nature manifests itself, in a small little corner of the whole thing. Self edification, with these thoughts and questions considered, in some ways may not be edification at all. At the least it could be edification in one instance and the opposite in another - Janus style.
Regardless of the answers to these questions the idea of self edification remains in the green the way I see it, guided by what I would want to achieve with myself in the midst of others. Regardless of this flaw, dilemma, paradox, whatever you want to call it, it remains worthy of all this mind numbing over-thinking that I often find myself drowning in when I think about the concept of self edification.
I suppose this is just another bit of understanding. A drop in the ocean, one might say. Or it could be nothing at all?
