the (un)examined life

In theory, as a hyper rational individual with no external factors to influence one’s emotional development or judgement, we can safely say that when it comes to choices, we always have one. It follows through a simple, logical process. It is either x or y, once decided, leads you to the outcome of your choice. But as we all know, there is no such thing as a hyper rational individual, it is merely a quintessential person, established to explain a theory. Theories do not have the capacity to capture the nuances of the human experience. Hence to apply the conclusion of a theory to decide whether an individual is capable of being rational despite their favourable, or less than favourable circumstances, would not be fair and accurate. Yes, technically there is always a choice when a decision must be made. But no, it is not necessarily that simple to decide on this choice. It all depends on… one’s circumstances.

Essentially, we are not living on technicalities or in the theories that have been created to understand the human experience. We are living on vulnerability, strength, courage, weakness, greed, fear, and all the other good stuff that make us human. All these traits place us on the constant need to compromise for what we need in the current situation. To judge a person based on the choice that they have made is as facile as formulating an impression of them based on how they look. As oversimplistic as the comparison may be, on both instances, we are better of understanding how a choice comes about before we decide on what we think of it. Let us break it down and investigate this further.

What is choice exactly? As mentioned in the beginning, we are all presented with two options when we must make a decision. However, what is almost always overlooked, is the element that comes with having to make the decision: agency. The choice we make is as good as the sense of agency we have in making that choice. While the options presented may not be within one’s control, one’s sense of agency might. Even so, depending on one’s circumstances, a sense of agency may be influenced by other factors such as societal expectations, survival, and even the lack of knowledge of one’s own sense of agency. To make an informed choice which would reap the highest benefits, one ought to be fully aware of one’s sense of agency and then proceed to make their preferred choice. To be aware of one’s sense of agency, one must first be in the possession of a good degree of self-awareness, an element that contributes to one’s identity.

Call it self-awareness, self-knowledge or sense of self, they all essentially point towards how much we truly know ourselves, and how this knowledge would help us navigate life through our preferred choices, ones that are made out of our own free will. The more acquainted one is to one’s higher self i.e. a version of the self that is acting from a place of love towards oneself, the more authentic that choice becomes. The authenticity of the choice bears outcomes that nourish the soul, bringing it a step closer to its soul purpose. The steps mentioned here need not necessarily refer to only those that bring joy, but also those of excruciating nature. Similar to choices that are deemed authentic, choices that are made in the absence of self-knowledge, following a lack of sense of agency, will also involve both delightful and searing experiences, more often than not in the reverse order.

As with any processes, there is no growth without tension and no progress without struggles.

Choices are necessary, good or bad to move forward. It can only be avoided if one is content with the monotony that is embedded in perceived stability. To make a choice then takes courage and to have a courageous act simplified into a binary where one option may be apparently false and unwise to some, would then be a grave mistake of the misguided, self-righteous, delusional or hyper rational individual – the latter who cannot be said to possibly exist. If that is so, why are we insisting that individuals should have known better when, in the epistemological sense, they clearly could not?