Individuality–or the lack thereof

This is actually a Philosophy reaction paper I submitted way back in college. I almost got a perfect grade for this project, but for a technicality since I did not follow my professor’s prescribed format. Bummed me out big time then, but I now laugh at the silliness of that mistake. Haha. Anywho, without further ado:

With regard to everything that counts in human life, including especially matters of ethical and religious concern, philosopher Soren Aabye Kierkegaard held that the crowd is always wrong. Any appeal to the opinions of others is inherently false, since it involves an effort to avoid responsibility for the content and justification of one’s own convictions. Genuine action must always arise from the Individual, without any prospect of support or agreement from others. Thus, on Kierkegaard’s view, both self-denial and the self-realization to which it may lead require absolute and uncompromising independence from the group. Social institutions—embodying “the system” of Hegelian idealism—are invariably bad; only the solitary perception of self can be worthwhile.

Nowadays, in a society wherein one must fit into the proverbial social mold in order to survive, individuality is fast becoming obsolete. Wherever we go, there are always standards, norms and other such bases for fitting in. The unwritten rule is that if you fail to conform to the standard, you are not accepted in the society. And so, in an effort to fit in and be “one” with the society, an individual must sacrifice his personal thoughts, views and convictions. This loss of individuality is what Kierkegaard’s philosophy opposes.

Individuality does not necessarily mean always going against the flow. It simply means going with your own flow of thought, be they with or against the crowd. Since every society is composed of great numbers of different individuals, it cannot be helped that every once in a while, one’s thought or idea coincides with that of another. This correlation, when multiplied with the number of individuals sharing the same idea constitutes the so-called norm or standard. However, just because this majority thinks in a particular way does not mean that their way of thinking is the correct one. Thinking otherwise, one makes the mistake of conforming mindlessly, thus losing his individuality.

Being a nonconformist, I agree with Kierkegaard that a person must stand by his convictions. The concept of right and wrong are but the general consensus of the majority in a crowd. There is no morally right decision with respect to society because though a group with a collective view of morality, society is till composed of individuals, each with varying ideals and beliefs. Conforming to society’s standards is a pointless exploit since there is not one idea that absolutely everyone agrees upon.

Since every person has his own perception of himself, which varies from others’ perception of him, a person’s worth cannot be duly quantified. Comparison to others is useless, as every pair of individuals have their own distinct similarities and differences. A person’s worth can only be compared to his own set of ideals to which he chooses to base his actions and decisions from. Any likeness or discrepancy between his ideal image and actual image is the only thing he should work upon improving or correcting. Taking others’ opinion into consideration would be a waste of time since what one would consider satisfactory, another might find unacceptable; in which case could just lead to an identity crisis.

Most people base their sense of worth upon what others think them to be. Fear of rejection forces them to disregard their own beliefs in favour of the majority’s approval. This erodes their independence and in effect, their actual self-worth.