Relational Selfhood, Means and Ends

There are no ends, only means, because ends are a means to the means of an End. For example: Seifo my bro, you as an end to my love, are in fact but a means; a means to the end of loving you. In considering you to be a means to the end of loving you, I’m considering the act of ‘loving you’ in-itself as the volitional end of my love. In turn, the end of ‘loving you’ is only a means to Seifo being loved by me. If we didn’t consider this second premise to be equally valid yet seemingly paradoxical to the first premise, love would be unbearably selfish. The only way to reconcile this paradox is by considering a relational view of selfhood as opposed to an individualistic one. This view implies that Seif and I, as beloveds and lovers, can’t be considered as emergent distinctly from our relationality with one another. Love breaks apart the ontological walls of individual selfhood. In all practical matters, I carry Seif as a part of my indivisible seed of the Self, and I in Seif’s. We’re self-individuated, yes, have our unique personalties, yes, will disagree, of course, but are we seperable from the people whose love sustains us? The communities whose welfare and care we depend on? Even the mutual trust socio-political associations depend on for health? Nope, definitely not. In loving myself I am nurturing the love of Seif that makes up the fabric of my core memories and heart. In loving Seif, I am permitted to exercise my volitional necessity to live with love. Alone, this characterization remains selfish and incomplete, at what point does Seif get loved as end in himself? At every point when we faithfully abide by the mandates of love between two relationally indivisible members of a community of love. With the collapse of all ends of love into means to the means of loving the beloved, Seifo is loved every time I love him or myself, everytime he loves himself or me. In taking care of one another we take care of our selves, in taking care of our selves, we’re taking care of one another. Not only are we ontologically or retroactively indivisible, but we share the same welfare interests, the good of the family if you want. While love flourishes in the diversity of personalities, interests, values and things cared about, the bonds of love usually last longer when the beloved and lover can agree on the principles that should guide their collective welfare interests.

How have I neglected so much of my being? By narrowing down and fixating on one aspect of my Self or another that I deem acceptable when compared to all the other unacceptable parts of who I am. People are complex, and we can’t always be ourselves when we try to perform a function we think characteristic of our selves, it’s often best to step back and allow who we are to flow in its entirety rather than be curated by our inner critic. Don't commodify yourself as a means to your ends, especially when ends are only ever means to the means of the end. You're neither a mule you have to dangle a carrot in front of, nor a bank you have to steal selfhood from.

Failing to respect ourselves will make us destructive to the people we fail to care for. Friendships are modeled on self-love and if our loving isn't loving, we’ll fail to give others the respect and care we’ve neglected in ourselves.

Moral presence suggests that if we’re not in the here and now, immersed in the experience of the naturalistic present, with our people, we will fail to be sensitive to the cues of comfort, discomfort, sadness or whatever in our friends. If we’re so intent on pleasing from the comfort of our dissociated minds, or from the intellectualization of an experience that demands to be felt, we’ll miss the feeling of a friend having a bad day, that’s feeling down on themselves for example. Side note, why are we so hesitant to bridge the gap of awkwardness when something is visibly off.