Is Man An Island?

[Verv]

This question has bothered me for the last 2-3 years. I have been incapable of deciding the answer. I have asked it a lot of times.

Is man an island? Or is man connected with other people profoundly? Is it possible for people to really be connected? For if the connections I have felt with others are all there is... I am inclined to feel that man is alone, and that man is an island.

My argument is that there are a lot of people with whom you will share good connections, good friendships, good brotherhood, but in the end there is only so much that you can do, and only so far that you can connect with a person; at a certain point you are your own person, and their understanding of you can only be superficial.

For instance, even though I feel very connected with my girlfriend I'll never understand certain aspects of her, nor her of me, and to try to sympathize with them and have true empathy is impossible.

All people are fundamentally alone, and the comfort we can provide to each other is limited. Man is an island...

What do you think?

 

[lawtonfogle]

From your example, I will use something I was told once by someone (where and who he was, I have forgotten). "Everyday, I learn something new about my wife, which give me something new about her to love."

I conclude that by never reaching full understanding, you will always have a goal to reach. Maybe fully understanding another is not as good as it may seem.

There is one key point you seem to struggle with, and that is best shown in an example. How do we know others exist, and our not just an example of our imagination? We don't, but there are some people I don't think I could imagine. What is your answer to the question.

 

[elman]

From your example, I will use something I was told once by someone (where and who he was, I have forgotten). "Everyday, I learn something new about my wife, which give me something new about her to love."

I conclude that by never reaching full understanding, you will always have a goal to reach. Maybe fully understanding another is not as good as it may seem.

There is one key point you seem to struggle with, and that is best shown in an example. How do we know others exist, and our not just an example of our imagination? We don't, but there are some people I don't think I could imagine. What is your answer to the question.

I think what you said about the man and what he said about his wife is true and all of life is a journey in which we learn more to appreciate about life if we are open to such learning. We are not an island in my opinion in the sense that every decision I make effects not only me but people around me and people who love me. Yet we are alone in the sense that we have responsibility for our own actions. We can be loving or we can be unloving to those around us and again our choices effect the happiness of not only those around us but also ourselves. Some people talk about things being their own concern and of no concern to anyone else. Very few things in life are truly no one'c concern but mine.

 

[DailyBlessings]

No, no man is an island, entire of itself, but every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. We are defined by our relationships to one another- without them we are nothing. Or at best a completely meaningless something. When some one asks "who are you?" what is your answer?

 

[Catherineanne]

All people are fundamentally alone, and the comfort we can provide to each other is limited. Man is an island...

What do you think?

I think until you lose those connections with other people, you do not know how important they are in giving you your identity, and in connecting you with humanity.

There is a medical condition which results in the loss of those connections, and it is hell on earth. It causes a profound feeling of disconnection and alienation, with everyone else seemingly on another world, or another dimension.

Perhaps you will believe me, therefore, when I say that even though you are not finding your own ideal of full emotional union with your girlfriend in the way you would like, what you have is priceless, and connects you in a unique, and very special way.

What John Donne is saying in his poem is very profound, and carries great truth. We are all interconnected, and the death of any man causes diminishment in any one of us; far more so if it is someone we love. If you think you are an island, therefore, wait until you are bereaved of a loved one. You will soon find out how powerful the connections are.

 

[Eudaimonist]

We are defined by our relationships to one another- without them we are nothing. Or at best a completely meaningless something. When some one asks "who are you?" what is your answer?

Honestly, I wouldn't start answering that question by mentioning relations to others. I would talk about my personal interests, dreams, goals, values, views, etc first, and only afterwards start to talk about my relations to others (son, husband, etc).

I totally disagree that we are completely defined by our relationships to others. I am not nothing minus those relationships.

That said, I do think that human beings are by nature social beings, and that relationships are important to us -- we have a need for relationships.


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

Man is infinetely connected with the universe as part of the totality of existence. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Hegel, or if you find him too tough of a read, Marx. Or google "dialectic".

 

[Verv]

I have read all the responses and as opposed to applying to any individual response, I do have some quick questions...

Lawton, so a complete connection with another person is impossible, but rather it is a goal, and the more that we learn about our loved ones the more important they become and the more important our relationship becomes? Am I getting you right?

What about a lot of the people you would have liekd to have been close with but your job takes you away -- for instance, I am in the military and am in Korea, and my career path after the military looks like it will be in Korea; I have come into contact wit so many great soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines from all over the US whoa re now spread out like dust across the world, and chances are I will never see them again but our brief times were important..

For that purpose, it seems like there is a lot of relationships left unfulfilled, it seems to me that man in a lot of relations is mean tot be unfulfilled.

Catherine, I see what you are saying -- and I do think I have found some really ideal moments with my girlfriend, friends, etc. but a lot of it seems so temporary and fleeting, and even though I might share a lot of good moments, good times, etc. it seems like everything has a temporary feel.

For instance, is man really connected when he can be sent away to Iraq or Afghanistan, or on long business trips or have his loved ones die, etc. and not have (even never have) those feelings of proximity again? It seems like the connection becomes worthless if it cannot give you positive feelings, but rather brings pain.

It seems almost empty when it is painful, and it seems like it should bring comfort.

Eudaimonist "I totally disagree that we are completely defined by our relationships to others. I am not nothing minus those relationships." I do agree with that a lot.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Honestly, I wouldn't start answering that question by mentioning relations to others. I would talk about my personal interests, dreams, goals, values, views, etc first, and only afterwards start to talk about my relations to others (son, husband, etc).

And how many of those goals would have any meaning without human society to give them meaning? I don't know what your goals are, but if they involve things like money or career, those are products of human culture. If they are intellectual, they have no real meaning except to you, and even that is minimal. Without other people, everything is irrelevant. Now, the way I generally answer that question is to state my name (a socially loaded distinction) though outpouring my innermost goals whenever anyone asks might lead to some interesting conversations...

 

[Im_A]

This question has bothered me for the last 2-3 years. I have been incapable of deciding the answer. I have asked it a lot of times.

Is man an island? Or is man connected with other people profoundly? Is it possible for people to really be connected? For if the connections I have felt with others are all there is... I am inclined to feel that man is alone, and that man is an island.

My argument is that there are a lot of people with whom you will share good connections, good friendships, good brotherhood, but in the end there is only so much that you can do, and only so far that you can connect with a person; at a certain point you are your own person, and their understanding of you can only be superficial.

For instance, even though I feel very connected with my girlfriend I'll never understand certain aspects of her, nor her of me, and to try to sympathize with them and have true empathy is impossible.

All people are fundamentally alone, and the comfort we can provide to each other is limited. Man is an island...

What do you think?

good OP. i hope this discussion keeps going.

i believe man is an island. at least in this life. to even add God in this is a whole other topic for discussion.

but in relation to humanity, i believe we are an island to some degree.

for example, my fiancee and i. she is the only woman i have ever had/have such a close connection with. a person that i can grow with, mature in myself with for a lifetime and mature together, and that is the aspect that is the catch...mature in myself. the relation i have with her, helps me out tremendously, and in a sense, i don't feel like an island because of her which is honestly how i feel. but then again i wonder, i'll have to walk out that door, and not be around her for a time. the "me" is still outside of the connection/relation to others. i still have my issues that i have to deal with. i still have me, that is alone. even with faith in God, we may be connected through the Spirit, or just because i'm a creation of God, but nevertheless, we are thrown into this world and the choices we make our all on our own accord and it is up to us to work this life out, not others because of relation. (i'm throwing some ingredients of Sartre here.)

but i think it resembles so much of the creation story. Adam was created by himself. given paradise, and he was created alone, till God satisfied his loneliness. it's a hard story to bring into this discussion as well, but even God knew that it is not good for man to be alone. thus i believe that is pivatol point of our existence. and if the creation story tells us that Adam was lonely while being in direct contact with Father God, to deny our island existence is to just deny all the religious metaphors, and the reality of our existence.

but i don't see it as a bad thing tho. it isn't some idea laced with despair...well it can be if one wants to use in that mindset.

in dealing with it, we begin to realize that our relation to others, which may end when we die, or other various ways, is very important. the relation with humanity does nothing to cure our loneliness, just helps us to deal better with our loneliness. we realize how important this life is. we realize that we need stable connections in our life, not fictious ones. it makes life better to realize the truth, and to hold on to the good, and make this life something worth living for.

God Bless you! again, really good topic for discussion i hope it keeps up

 

[Eudaimonist]

And how many of those goals would have any meaning without human society to give them meaning?

Plenty. I do not seek meaning primarily "through society". Secondarily, at best.

I don't know what your goals are, but if they involve things like money or career, those are products of human culture.

No, I wouldn't have mentioned those first either.

And career for me may be a "product of human culture", but the fulfillment and personal growth I get from my career is my own -- it's my relation with reality and the actualization of my personal talents -- not itself a relation to others except in a trivial sense.

If they are intellectual, they have no real meaning except to you, and even that is minimal.

"No real meaning except to me" is meaning in full.

It may not mean much to you, but so what? Neither you nor society determine which meanings are important to me. Only I can do that.

Without other people, everything is irrelevant.

I feel sad that you have nothing of your own.

Truly, it doesn't have to be that way.


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Plenty. I do not seek meaning primarily "through society". Secondarily, at best.

I'm sure you do not consciously do so.

And career for me may be a "product of human culture", but the fulfillment and personal growth I get from my career is my own -- it's my relation with reality and the actualization of my personal talents -- not itself a relation to others except in a trivial sense.

What on earth are fulfillment and personal growth, and how do you know when they are achieved?

"No real meaning except to me" is meaning in full.

It may not mean much to you, but so what? Neither you nor society determine which meanings are important to me. Only I can do that.

Meaning for you, sure. Well and good. But give it sixty or seventy years, and your fabulous intellect will be a pile of swiftly decaying tissue. And nothing can have very much meaning without an observer.

I feel sad that you have nothing of your own.

Truly, it doesn't have to be that way.

It isn't. But that doesn't change the fact that we perceive ourselves, and certainly others perceive us, in relation to everything else. Why do you write about your opinion (in human script) if nothing matters to you except the self? Without the trappings of culture you'd have little time for the kind of self-discovery you describe. Whatever conclusion you come to, practically speaking it is a statement about the cultural contributions of a thousand some generations preceding you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm sure you do not consciously do so.

Oh, please.

What on earth are fulfillment and personal growth, and how do you know when they are achieved?

Self-actualization. The development of personal talents. The assertion of one's unique identity in the world.

These are a progressive achievement, and I know, and feel, when I achieve them when I have personal accomplishments that I find meaningful. I have experienced this on a number of occasions. It is sometimes accompanied by euphoria and joy.

Meaning for you, sure. Well and good. But give it sixty or seventy years, and your fabulous intellect will be a pile of swiftly decaying tissue. And nothing can have very much meaning without an observer.

I claim personal meaning only while I am alive and exist. What does this have to do with the topic? What does it even have to do with the quote you were responding to?

Why do you write about your opinion (in human script) if nothing matters to you except the self?

This is not my view. I don't know how you read this into what I wrote.


eudaimonia,

M.

 

[Catherineanne]

I Catherine, I see what you are saying -- and I do think I have found some really ideal moments with my girlfriend, friends, etc. but a lot of it seems so temporary and fleeting, and even though I might share a lot of good moments, good times, etc. it seems like everything has a temporary feel.

For instance, is man really connected when he can be sent away to Iraq or Afghanistan, or on long business trips or have his loved ones die, etc. and not have (even never have) those feelings of proximity again? It seems like the connection becomes worthless if it cannot give you positive feelings, but rather brings pain.

It seems almost empty when it is painful, and it seems like it should bring comfort.

I see from your icons that you are Pentecostal. That perhaps makes it easier to explain. Maybe what you are aware of is the ideal; the full spiritual union which we will have in eternity, with one another and with God.

At present you have fleeting glimpses of that union, and find it frustrating that you are so limited by our earthly existence, and that this does not last. Maybe you could look at it the other way round. If such union did not exist at all, you would not have the fleeing glimpses, would you? Surely you can take them as a sign that there is more to follow, once we escape mortality and enter immortality.

Meanwhile, you are not an island, but perhaps at times it feels as if you are.

I would not be so quick to condemn pain, if I were you. Pain tells you that you are still alive, and it is there to protect you. If you could not feel pain, you would have a very precarious existence, and be constantly breaking bones etc. Not nice.

Love hurts, but does that mean we would rather save the pain, and never ever love? Or is the pain the price we pay for love? The greater the love, the greater the pain when we part. But who would live without love, in order to avoid this pain? Anyone?

 

[Logicalthinker]

This question has bothered me for the last 2-3 years. I have been incapable of deciding the answer. I have asked it a lot of times.

Is man an island? Or is man connected with other people profoundly? Is it possible for people to really be connected? For if the connections I have felt with others are all there is... I am inclined to feel that man is alone, and that man is an island.

My argument is that there are a lot of people with whom you will share good connections, good friendships, good brotherhood, but in the end there is only so much that you can do, and only so far that you can connect with a person; at a certain point you are your own person, and their understanding of you can only be superficial.

For instance, even though I feel very connected with my girlfriend I'll never understand certain aspects of her, nor her of me, and to try to sympathize with them and have true empathy is impossible.

All people are fundamentally alone, and the comfort we can provide to each other is limited. Man is an island...

What do you think?

I agree that man may appear as an island, But live with your girlfriend for 50yrs and than have her taken away. At that point you might feel like half an island.

I feel mankind is an island together. Without anyone else we would not completely feel whole.

 

[Verv]

In the debate between Eudaimonist and Daily Blessings, I still agree Eudaimonist is right that we should not define ourselves by our relationships, but in the end I agree with DB that there is little worth without the society.

However, our relationship with the society is entirely dependent on our choices and our behavior and how we are, and thus the relationship we have with society is subject to ourself alone, and so the relationship is a product of us, making us more important than perceived relations.

I can see the views of a lot of people here, and in regards to Catherine, certainly my religious outlook has a lot to do with it -- the concept of spiritual union with God, etc. and I have always wondered how spiritual union is applicable between humans, and I have seen it from many perspectives but in the end... There is too much temporary nature to it, and in the end, there does not seem to be the overwhelming feelings one would think that you have.

Of course, as you see, I am 21, and at this point have a lot left, but I do feel that the close relationships I have had have been missing something. Perhaps that is gained through decades, as logical thinker points out, but I do not know yet and so I cannot fully believe.

As sort of tattedsaint talked about, I do feel such security and warmth with my friends and girlfriend on the weekends, but being that we live in Seoul (Korea), a gigantic metropolis, we scarcely have time to all meet up but for the weekends and so we end up breaking off and being only with co-workers during the week... The result? The week is very trudging.

In a sense, I do feel very much alone when it is the week, and you are going through the motions.

It is a topic that is really hard to put your finger on.

 

[Asimov]

This question has bothered me for the last 2-3 years. I have been incapable of deciding the answer. I have asked it a lot of times.

Is man an island? Or is man connected with other people profoundly? Is it possible for people to really be connected? For if the connections I have felt with others are all there is... I am inclined to feel that man is alone, and that man is an island.

My argument is that there are a lot of people with whom you will share good connections, good friendships, good brotherhood, but in the end there is only so much that you can do, and only so far that you can connect with a person; at a certain point you are your own person, and their understanding of you can only be superficial.

For instance, even though I feel very connected with my girlfriend I'll never understand certain aspects of her, nor her of me, and to try to sympathize with them and have true empathy is impossible.

All people are fundamentally alone, and the comfort we can provide to each other is limited. Man is an island...

What do you think?

If you fully understood someone, you would be that someone. Just because you're conncected, doesn't mean you're the same land. And just because you're not fully connected doesnt' mean you're fundamentally alone.

 

[billwald]

http://isu.indstate.edu/ilnprof/ENG451/ISLAND/text.html

no man is an island.

 

[Verv]

http://isu.indstate.edu/ilnprof/ENG451/ISLAND/text.html

no man is an island.

This was a good resource to post, but I do want to note that certainly there is a more profound, spiritual connection that exists with the union into the Body of Christ, and I do remember when:

[bible]Matthew 12:50[/bible]

The concept is that we are united through Christ, and that sould be fulfilling to us, which it may seem, but the question really for me comes down more to romantic love and kinmanship on a deeper level.

I am becoming more convinced that people do not really fully understand each other, and in a sense, we are meant to struggle alone and others do not fully know the pain and strife that we suffer.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

If man is an island, then he better learn how to swim!