Although I am fully aware that my attempts at what I want to do are going to fall completely flat on their face, it nonetheless brings me enjoyment to attempt to do such with all of the various things which run through my head for their various reasons. I will fail, but my goal is to discuss individualism as close to the truthful root as this concept can go. If you want to ask why I would undertake such a daunting endeavor, it is because it makes me happy, and if you want to know why it makes me happy, this is the sort of theme that I am attempting to explain in this piece, so perhaps you will have your answers in this all-encompassing piece that I am attempting to create.
This piece is just how it sounds: I am going to theorize the theory of knowledge of the individual. The subject personally fascinates me, I believe, because I am constantly curious about differences among people. It is part of my “individual” nature: why does this person take this action, why does this person take this action. It is how I interact with people. My interaction is all mental, and discussion disrupts the process which occurs naturally. I’m sure that there is some mental diagnosis for this behavior, but I have my own theories as to that type of attitude, and I will write about that whenever I have more time to develop my thoughts about it.
Essentially, the question that I’m getting at here is why are we all different. It is a question that has been shied away from by most and is enough to make people of lesser intelligence’s heads explode, but it is nonetheless one that stays in my mind at all times. Any time I am around someone different than me, I contemplate diversity itself. Namely, diversity among individual characters. What makes up an individual, what causes diversity among individuals. The common response to this is “there is value in diversity”, and that may be so, but I do not accept things on face value, especially things that are commonly said.
If you look at all of the different types of diversity in the world, comprehending each and every single one of these differences is enough to give one a headache. However, that is exactly what I enjoy doing because of whatever my personal individualistic epistemology is. Simply categorizing the different types of personality types is extremely difficult. I have not sufficiently delved into the logical structure of the mind and analyzed it enough to really write fully about it, so I will try to shy away from really talking about it too much. However, there seems to be a general sense within me that human beings function in logical ways. In other words, logic helps us function. For whatever reason, logic is the phenomenon that guides our actions and all that occurs within our brains. We believe that A is going to yield us B result, we know that C is going to yield us D with certainty that we are also somehow capable of comprehending. The brain is a gigantic logic-solving machine that is the foundation for the very way that we live. It isn’t perfect, for reasons that I believe that only religion can explain, but it nonetheless uses logic as its decision-making tool. Eating when we are hungry provides us with nourishment, and thus the hunger goes away. There are infinite other examples like this.
So because we are logical creatures, and this is the way that we thrive through the world, we use categories to help our brains preform their natural functions, both in how we categorize things as well as how we comprehend them.
That being said, now that we have an understanding of how humans act, why is there so much diversity among human action? One usually responds with “Because we are all different”, but that ultimately begs another “Why” question to a point that most are uncomfortable with, but which makes me happy. The diversity among humans is simply too great to completely identify all of them. However, I can’t help but notice an exponential number of them that I constantly analyze because of my own individualism.
Putting aside disagreements, even when people are cooperating, there are complete differences among individuality. There are no numbers to describe it, no definitions concise enough, no brain deep enough to store each and every one of these differences.
But yet, I cannot get them out of my head.
I believe that I want to understand the world by understanding individuality and differences. It is hard for me to navigate the world without having some sense of backdrop within these regards. Confusion, anger, shock, amazement, and other emotions come to me as a result of these individual differences, and one individual difference from me would say something like “These emotions are what make us human.” That may be true, but if you felt these same things because of getting raped, that advice would hardly be effective towards its goal.
However, it is like a math problem that a mathematician or a physicist can’t get out of his head, day in and day out, dreaming about it, stewing over it, for years and years. The individualism of others couldn’t even comprehend the physics that is already known, much less the physics that is currently unknown. However, it is because of this difference that I am interested in the topic that I have discussed today. It is of my curiosity that I wonder why there exist differences between the physicist and the non-physicist. Someone will say that there is value in diversity, but there is certainly no value in the diversity between the murderer and the non-murderer, or the rapist and the non-rapist, so diversity in and of itself is not inherently valuable. However, diversity has some purpose that I don’t think anybody has gotten to yet. Some people say “Life would be boring without it”, but I could argue that life would be much more boring without STDs as well (because fearing for your life can be quite exciting, and it certainly isn’t boring, so I don’t believe that is a good enough argument). However, there is something else at play here that is related to what I have just discussed.
Not all differences among people are good. For instance, I can hardly imagine someone saying that one person losing an arm while another person having both is a “good” thing. Sure, it is good that at least one person has two arms, but is it good that the other person lost both of their arms? I’m not talking about making the best out of a bad situation: I’m saying is it good to only have one arm and is it better or worse than having both of your arms? This latter question is a question of what is “good” or not, so it is relevant. Therefore, diversity for its own sake is not always beneficial. We must have some other category to determine if a particular diversity is “good” or not, and that is interesting.
It would be impossible for me to analyze all of the different diversities among people, and likewise, it is probably impossible, as I said before, to determine an individualistic epistemology. However, I try anyway.
I honestly can think of no reason why individuals are individuals and why diversity is diversity. Individualism for its own sake might not be valuable, as a murderer is certainly individualistic in the way that the term is often used to demonstrate “value.” Likewise, the same with diversity. But obviously, individualism and diversity both exist, and they have to have a purpose, whether we ask that question or not.
I may never know what the purpose of individualism is, except to just accept it as an axiom, but even then, the question will always stay in my head.
Likewise with diversity: I can see that it has value, but that doesn’t explain to me why it exists, and I suppose that I could accept an easy answer, but that would not appeal to my individualistic nature, diverse from those whom that answer would satisfy.
I suppose the point of this piece is to at least begin to ask these questions to myself to organize my thoughts and maybe elaborate on it at some time. The question is a part of my individualism, and my individualism wants to understand my own individualism and individualism in and of itself, which is diverse from other people’s individualisms.
Perhaps that’s why I’m asking these questions with so much conviction.
Solutions will come later at an unknown time.