Naess believes that the process of self-realisation is conducive to creating an extended ecological self. He claims that “Increased self-realisation implies a broadening and deepening of the self” (Naess, 2016, p…). He uses Eric Fromm’s writings on the self to clarify this further. Fromm offers an alternative perspective to Freud’s theory of narcissism that describes “the phenomenon of love as an impoverishment of one’s self-love because all libido is turned to an object outside oneself (Fromm, p.84)”. He instead states that love for others and love of ourselves are not alternatives. They must both exist simultaneously.
While freud separates the notion of love into divisible categories, Fromm’s love is indivisible (but important to note that it starts with the self). Concerning environmental ethics, if we achieve a widened sense of self that spans all of our relata, then effort, or moral duty, is reduced as we transform the notion of self-sacrifice into self-interest. Self interest however, is not “conceived in terms of the subjective feeling of what one’s interest is, but in terms of what the nature of a human is objectively” (Fromm, p.86). Our inherent potentialities are not related to our impulses of the moment. Nevertheless, the misinterpretation of the term inherent potentialities as an extension of an ego-trip is strife in today’s society. An ego-trip that prioritises one’s economic status and career – “Isolating goods and services, independent of needs, it encourages self-interest through the lens of individualism.” It’s not to say that we shouldn’t focus on ourselves. But in order to attain self-realisation in separation to the ego, we must become more attuned to realising the manifestations of our true nature, as opposed to being ruled by the generalist goals of success handed down to us by societal expectation. By paying attention to this we may realise that non-humans too have inherent potentialities. Considering this I am reminded of a quote by the Roman emperor and stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius;
“Don’t you see the plants, the birds, the ants and spiders and bees going about their individual tasks, putting the world in order, as best they can? And you’re not willing to do your job as a human being? Why aren’t you running to do what your nature demands?
(meditations, p…).
We could consider a tree and its growth, its ability to sequester carbon and to provide a habitat for other living things. Does it do these things for some external validation or praise? We might say its inherent potentialities have been realised, in the way that its growth is tied to the other. Acquainting ourselves with the nature of our collective self-realisation as a species might seem unclear, but if we consider that our capacity for innovation has taken our survival out of the palm of competition’s hand, we might do better to realise the duty that is bound to our inherence.
“We are the first kind of living beings we know of who have the potential to live in community with all other living beings.”
(p.96).
According to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, a moral act is one of duty and against our inclination, but we may be compelled to carry it out due to the strength of our value systems. This can be an unsustainable, inconsistent and uncomfortable basis to act from. In contrast, a beautiful act is something we do based both on morals and positive inclination. A wider sense of self and identity means no moralising is needed to be selfless. We return to this idea of environmental ontology and realism as a superior, longer-range target, in opposition to environmental ethics as a means of invigorating action.
Bibliography