Abstract

The nature of the self is qualified in varying ways in philosophy but, as we shall see in detail, one thing is constant: the self is the object of a subjective reflexivity or self-involvement. By this inner folding, a person maintains not only a relationship with himself, but also ascribes a reality value to what he relates to. The self is seen, for example, as the genuine deeper reality of the ego, as that which underlies every relation to the external world. Or just the opposite: it is nothing but a part of that external world, I relate to that self as to a thing in the world. Some thinkers even doubt the existence of such a self: for them, the belief in something like a self is created by certain peculiarities of language. For instance, to what does `self' refer in a statement like “I wasn't myself”, “I will help myself”, “I should give myself some rest”, etc?I will discuss two opposed conceptions of the nature of the self and indicate the shortcomings of each approach, in order to go on to show something about self-involvement and singularity that is often overlooked. The two opposed conceptions deal with the self in different ways because they also deal differently with the relation between consciousness and the self as such. In the first conception, this relation remains external: reflection is not of the same order as the self and, conversely, the self is something that always falls outside of reflection, something against which a position can be occupied and a distance taken. Here, the self is an object whose nature does not in the least affect the nature of reflection. To the contrary, the ego must explicitly identify with that object if there is to be any trace of a connection with it at all. I will refer to this position as that of individualism.The second conception sees the self and reflection as forming an organic unity preceding any conscious identifications.They are both fused into an organic totality in such a manner that any reflection becomes an expression of the self and is affected by it. There already exists, between the self and reflection, a pre-objective relationship by virtue of which the self can never be considered as an object of identification. It is not an object: I have a link with myself that is more intimate, not the result of an identification but of an intuition, a feeling or a creativity. This is the personalistic conception of the self. The self and reflection share one and the same nature, and the relation between them is internal. I am always already myself without needing to identify with a self, and without needing to take a position with respect to a self.Moreover, I can never take the same position with respect to the self as I would take with respect to an object. If I did, I would have misconceived the authentic reality of that self, or of my `person' and the intimate relationship that I maintain with it. What is original in the individualistic conception appears, from a personalistic viewpoint, to be only derived and inauthentic. Individualism confuses the deeper self with a social marionette . Personalism, as we shall see, also developed in reaction to an individualistic conception of the person . In this article, I will draw a distinction between the two approaches on the basis of their differing descriptions of the problem of freedom