On Losing One’s Self

“The greatest hazard of all, losing one’s self, can occur very quietly in the world, as if it were nothing at all. No other loss can occur so quietly; any other loss—an arm, a leg, five dollars, a wife, etc.—is sure to be noticed.”—Søren Kierkegaard 

 

Before dwelling on the losing part, I ought first to render a contextual definition of the self. Generally defined, and commonly understood, the self is one’s distinct essential being. That, however, in rerum natura, can never be lost. It can become dormant, nonetheless; but not lost. It is perdurable per se; for it is perforce an article of existence—hence, ever present. Hurrah! It is done then: There is no such thing as losing the self. If so, then, what is that ‘losable’  self that we dread so much the possibility of losing it, and dedicate the most impassioned lamentations for its loss? It is the transcendent self, without which we are nothing but base creatures. 

 

For the purpose of this writing, therefore, the contextual definition of the self to be adopted herein is the one Kierkegaard (1849) had established in, “The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening,” which states that:

“A human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation’s relating itself to itself [my formatting],” (Kierkegaard 13).

To further elucidate how this ‘relation’s relating itself to itself’ transpires, Kierkegaard went on explaining the existential condition of the human being: 

“A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two. Considered in this way, a human being is still not a self.

In the relation between two, the relation is the third as a negative unity, and the two relate to the relation and in the relation to the relation; thus under the qualification of the psychical the relation between the psychical and the physical is a relation. If, however, the relation relates itself to itself, this relation is the positive third, and this is the self.

…

…

The human self is such a derived, established relation, a relation that relates itself to itself and in relating itself to itself relates itself to another.” (Kierkegaard 13)

Accordingly, since this self, the transcendent self, is a relation, it can—as with all relations—be lost. 

From Nietzsche’s understanding of nihilism, to Freud’s identified blows to narcissism, to grievance; it has always felt that at some point, somewhere along the train of thought, a leap occurs, a discontinuation of stream, with respect to the losing of the self. Universally, they are all very fine theories—notwithstanding my personal reservations. But, as one’s focus narrows down to the self—namely its loss—they fall a notch short of touching on the heart of the matter. 

They wholly capitalize, in essence, on the relation between the self and external elements, notions, and experiences to itself (i.e. the self relating itself to another); whilst they scantly, if at all, reflect on the relation wherein the self relates itself to itself. For instance, nihilism resulting from the loss of belief in an overarching purpose (i.e. telos) pertains to the self’s relation to existential reality. Similarly, the copernican (i.e. heliocentrism) blow to narcissism manifests in man’s, any man’s [emphasis added], relation to, or station in, the cosmos. Likewise, grievance is an emotional response prompted by a social experience; hence, it is outwardly directed per se, rather than being an inwardly directed emotive reflex. 

Albeit that they {nihilism, the blows to narcissism, and grievance, etc.} may, and very well can, instigate the loss of the self, their classification oscillates between cause and ramification vis-á-vis the loss of the self. But what is the loss of the self? It is the state of existence wherein the self is no longer capable of relating itself to itself; in fine, when the self is disconnected from itself. 

Having that said, it is very possible—even probable—that those experiences: nihilism, blows to narcissism, and grievance, manifest subsequent and consequent to such disconnection. The self can disconnect from everything and still relate itself to itself. It is only when the self no longer relates itself to itself, can it then be said that the self is lost. But how does the self cease to relate itself to itself in the relation?

 

To put it succinctly, the self ceases to relate itself to itself once it no longer entertains a WILL. 

 

In a nutshell, this, ladies and gentlemen, is the greatest hazard of all: That a human being ceases to entertain a will. The will is incontestably the most powerful faculty humans have been endowed with. And, without it all is LOST! TO WILL NOT IS TO BE NOT. Nevertheless, that state of absent willingness—notwithstanding how godlike to will may be; ostensibly ever present—‘can occur very quietly in the world, as if it were nothing at all’.

 

 

Reference

Kierkegaard, Søren. The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening. Princeton UP, 1980.