Philosophy Discussion Forums

Raymonda Onwuka 1 wrote: ↑April 25th, 2024, 5:00 pm Maybe it is not just a rhythm after all, Though I think that if you really want to see the real you get power. Being in a position of power has a way of changing and revealing our true selves. Sometimes you get to meet a dimension of you that you have never known.

Your reflection on power as a mirror to our true selves adds an intriguing dimension to the idea encapsulated by the image of Humpty-Dumpty. Indeed, it's commonly said that "power reveals," suggesting that when individuals gain power, their true characteristics and inclinations are unveiled. This contrasts with the notion that adversity or "brokenness" strips us down to our essence.

Philosophically, this can be tied back to notions of the self in both Eastern and Western traditions. For instance, Plato posited that the true measure of a person is how they handle power, echoing through his "Ring of Gyges" argument in The Republic, where he questions if a man who becomes invisible (and thus unaccountable) would still perform righteous acts.

Similarly, modern psychological theories like the transformational leadership model suggest that power can indeed be a force for revealing or even developing one's true character, depending on how it's wielded. Leaders who use their power to empower others, showing what James MacGregor Burns terms "moral leadership," arguably reveal a self that is both ethical and self-aware.

Yet, the question remains: does power distort or clarify our true nature? Are we seeing the "real" self, or simply a version of the self that reacts to new stimuli and opportunities for personal gain or altruism?

What are your thoughts on the potential for both to not only reveal but also shape who we truly are?

Richard Garcia 5 wrote: ↑April 25th, 2024, 5:51 pm This saying totally makes sense to me, but in two ways. Sure, we see ourselves way better when we stop fooling ourselves, but we also see who our real friends are. It is sad that we have be totally bare to truly understand ourselves, you know? But these days, there are so many people who just pretend to be someone they're not, following trends and all that. They're scared to be themselves because they worry about what others will think.

You've touched on something profoundly reflective about human nature and the social masks we often wear. Your dual perspective on seeing ourselves—both in terms of self-awareness and social relationships when stripped of pretenses—is deeply resonant with existentialist views, particularly those of Jean-Paul Sartre. He famously said, "Hell is other people," underscoring the idea that our interactions can often be a source of our understanding, yet also our deepest miseries due to the pressures of conforming to societal expectations.

This notion that adversity or "bareness" can lead to greater self-understanding is not new but remains ever poignant in our current age of curated selves via social media. When you strip away the resources and facades, what remains can indeed be more authentic. Moreover, the friends who remain when the veneer is gone—those are your true companions, as revealed through trials.

The sadness you mention about needing to be bare to understand ourselves and see who our friends are brings to light a societal longing for authenticity amidst a culture of pretense. It’s a potent reminder of the importance of fostering environments where individuals feel safe and valued for their genuine selves.

Do you think our societal structure inherently discourages authenticity? And if so, how might we shift towards a culture that values and encourages genuine self-expression and fosters true community support, rather than superficial networks?

This is a very interesting concept of this rhythm. I’ve never thought of it this way before.

We do know that it’s often very true that we can’t begin to heal our brokenness until we reach a very low point. Usually there’s no one that can begin that healing process but us. We must reach up and out for help first. Then we find resources to help get the pieces put together and get us back on track.

This whole idea shows us that even if we seem to be failing at something, we must find ways to seek help. Not just stay in our sad and broken place.

BRIGID Wandera wrote: ↑April 30th, 2024, 5:38 pm This is a very interesting concept of this rhythm. I’ve never thought of it this way before.

We do know that it’s often very true that we can’t begin to heal our brokenness until we reach a very low point. Usually there’s no one that can begin that healing process but us. We must reach up and out for help first. Then we find resources to help get the pieces put together and get us back on track.

This whole idea shows us that even if we seem to be failing at something, we must find ways to seek help. Not just stay in our sad and broken place.

That's a deep interpretation of facing challenges and self-recovery. It does seem like adversity can strip us down to our fundamentals, pushing us to confront our true selves. This notion that hitting rock bottom is a starting point for healing and rebuilding is quite compelling. It highlights the importance of self-initiative and seeking help when needed.

Do you think this concept applies universally, or are there circumstances where people discover their strengths in prosperity rather than in hardship? What are your thoughts on the role of external support in this self-recovery process?

The bummer is that it seems like these days you gotta be totally bare to truly understand who you are. There are so many people who just pretend to be someone they're not, following trends and all that. It's like they're scared to be their own unique selves because they worry what others will think. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just be comfortable in our own skin?

No, Humpty-Dumpty does not explicitly state that we see our true selves only when we are broke. This concept seems to be a misattribution. The phrase "Humpty-Dumpty" primarily refers to a character in the English nursery rhyme who falls and cannot be put back together again. In literature, Humpty-Dumpty appears in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking-Glass," where he discusses the meaning of words, asserting control over their definitions.

The idea that true character is revealed in times of hardship is a common sentiment, but it is not directly connected to Humpty-Dumpty. This notion is often attributed to various philosophers and writers who suggest that adversity strips away pretenses and reveals one's genuine nature. Humpty-Dumpty's discussions in Carroll's work focus more on semantics and the arbitrary nature of language than on personal integrity or character revelation through adversity.

Julie Gebrosky wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 9:24 pm

Tara D Morgan wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 10:26 am I don't understand this question and how it fits with Humpty Dumpty. The rhyme dates back to England in 1797 and is believed to have started as a riddle - What once broken can't be put back together again? - An egg!

I agree with you completely! I think you’re right. Otherwise it wouldn’t make sense because nowhere in the nursery rhyme is Humpy Dumpty identified as an egg. I remember reading somewhere a while ago about people speculating where we even got the notion that he was an egg. After all, doesn’t it seem odd that we would have an egg sitting on a wall that all the king’s horses and men would want to piece back together in the first place? Of course, he’s always depicted as an egg in drawings for some reason.

SO who exactly is humpty dumpty, and why is he so important to the kings men?

I wholeheartedly concur with you! You seem to be correct. If not, it
wouldn't make sense as Humpy Dumpty isn't recognized as an egg anywhere
in the nursery rhyme. I seem to recall reading somewhere that there have
been theories as to where we even got the idea that he was an egg.

Daniel Obi 2 wrote: ↑May 4th, 2024, 12:14 pm The bummer is that it seems like these days you gotta be totally bare to truly understand who you are. There are so many people who just pretend to be someone they're not, following trends and all that. It's like they're scared to be their own unique selves because they worry what others will think. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just be comfortable in our own skin?

You raise a really good point. It seems that people in today's world tend to hide behind layers of materialism, societal pressure, or trends, and they only come to terms with their true selves when everything breaks apart. It's as though being "broke" eliminates all of the distractions, forcing us to face our true selves. I think we would all be much happy if we could just learn to accept and value who we really are.

But is there any other way for people to truly know who they are, or do you think they need to reach their lowest point? Perhaps it's about finding quiet or vulnerable times in the midst of a successful existence. How do you feel?

Henry Chude wrote: ↑May 16th, 2024, 7:59 pm No, Humpty-Dumpty does not explicitly state that we see our true selves only when we are broke. This concept seems to be a misattribution. The phrase "Humpty-Dumpty" primarily refers to a character in the English nursery rhyme who falls and cannot be put back together again. In literature, Humpty-Dumpty appears in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking-Glass," where he discusses the meaning of words, asserting control over their definitions.

The idea that true character is revealed in times of hardship is a common sentiment, but it is not directly connected to Humpty-Dumpty. This notion is often attributed to various philosophers and writers who suggest that adversity strips away pretenses and reveals one's genuine nature. Humpty-Dumpty's discussions in Carroll's work focus more on semantics and the arbitrary nature of language than on personal integrity or character revelation through adversity.

You make a valid point, I see. The primary focus of Carroll's writing is language and how the character and the nursery rhyme understand it. Humpty-Dumpty typically evokes thoughts of "being broken" in life or having a breakdown. It's incredible the depths to which people can interpret symbols or characters.

I do think there's something to that broader idea, though, about how adversity tends to reveal who we really are. But it’s not always necessary to be "broke" in the financial sense to see our true selves. Sometimes it’s emotional hardship or just facing big life changes that force us to reflect. Do you think people are more their "true selves" in tough times? Or is it just a different side of them that shows up?

Eromosele Success wrote: ↑September 20th, 2024, 3:29 pm

Julie Gebrosky wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 9:24 pm

Tara D Morgan wrote: ↑January 29th, 2023, 10:26 am I don't understand this question and how it fits with Humpty Dumpty. The rhyme dates back to England in 1797 and is believed to have started as a riddle - What once broken can't be put back together again? - An egg!

I agree with you completely! I think you’re right. Otherwise it wouldn’t make sense because nowhere in the nursery rhyme is Humpy Dumpty identified as an egg. I remember reading somewhere a while ago about people speculating where we even got the notion that he was an egg. After all, doesn’t it seem odd that we would have an egg sitting on a wall that all the king’s horses and men would want to piece back together in the first place? Of course, he’s always depicted as an egg in drawings for some reason.

SO who exactly is humpty dumpty, and why is he so important to the kings men?

An interesting point of view! As it happens, Humpty-Dumpty is a little enigmatic. The king's men's deep devotion to him is illogical; he's just a character in a nursery tale who falls off a wall and cannot be put back together.

When you think about it, it's kind of funny: why are all these soldiers attempting to fix an egg? I guess a symbolic perspective is one way to look at it. When Humpty-Dumpty "breaks," it's a loss that cannot be reversed, not even with all the king's might. He may stand in for someone or something significant, such as stability or innocence. It matters more what his fall signifies—something brittle that, once broken, cannot be repaired—than who he is. Do you think that’s why the king’s men are involved, or do you have a different angle on it?

Shiru Elizabeth wrote: ↑September 24th, 2024, 12:23 am I wholeheartedly concur with you! You seem to be correct. If not, it
wouldn't make sense as Humpy Dumpty isn't recognized as an egg anywhere
in the nursery rhyme. I seem to recall reading somewhere that there have
been theories as to where we even got the idea that he was an egg.

Yes, precisely! Actually, Humpty Dumpty's status as an egg is only a product of evolution. It's almost as if art and other legends created this widely recognised interpretation of the rhyme, which never explicitly states that he is an egg. I believe that Humpty's transformation into an egg was first widely accepted by Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking-Glass," and it caught on from there.