I think it's important for any self-respecting philosophy enthusiast to understand why people who have struggled with dissociation and self-erasure might not strongly resonate with philosophies that speak of those things as either an endpoint or an entry fee.
Eh, that's sort of the thing, though.
I don't really think something like a philosophy usually has the ability to be universally true or false. I think philosophies can be personally, socially, or circumstantially meaningful or meaningless, resonant or dissonant, applicable or not applicable, but not true or false.
A philosophy can contain useful insights while still failing to speak to a particular person's lived reality. Someone who spent their life trapped in excessive ego and entitlement is likely going to encounter certain ideas very differently than someone who spent their life struggling to maintain a coherent sense of self in the first place.Ā A person drowning in ego and a person drowning in self-erasure do not have the same problem. It would be strange if the same prescription served both equally well.
That's part of why I think philosophical pluralism is valuable. Different people are trying to solve different problems. Sometimes, the same person has to solve a different problem under different circumstances. A framework that is liberating to one person or in one situation may be actively alienating or harmful to or in another, not because the framework is wrong, but because the people using it are starting from different places and trying to reach different destinations.
















