Is it really a dilemma?

Existentialists refer to the human dilemma or object-subject dichotomy as people being both the object and the subject of their existence. Humans have the capacity to themselves as objects to which things happen, as well as subjects who act on their experiences. In many way, this is what sets humans apart from other animals; the ability to step outside of ourselves and see ourselves acting in the world as well as being acted upon. Is this a dilemma or rather a healthy understanding of self?

I suppose it depends how far you take it on either end of this continuum of object or subject. You have behaviorists who advocate that humans are objects with little to no subjectivity. This is such an extreme stance and for me, very difficult to subscribe to. I certainly understand that a lot of behavior is learned and much of what we do or who we are is a product of our environment. However, to say that is the essence of who we are is placing us in the same category as every other animal on earth. Do behaviorists put themselves in this category? It’s hard for me to believe that they themselves think they are not free thinking individuals.

On the other end of the spectrum would be someone like Rogers (whom I love). He perhaps focused too much on subjectivity. The idea that our idea of self is developed only from our subjective view of our phenomenological field is again, a bit too extreme. This suggests to me that humans all live in their own little world and essentially choose what they want to be aware of. Perhaps there is some truth to that, but I would argue not to the extent in which Rogers thought. I think there are many stimuli from physical reality that have great influences on us, whether we are aware of or not.

It seems as I continue to write, I am aligning with May, who believed it a mistake to stress one side of the dichotomy over the other. It’s all about balance, which tends to be in a theme in all aspects of life. Once people are aware that they are both the object and subject of their existence, they can use that in their pursuit of self-actualization. The only way to become self-actualized is to be aware of one’s self, understanding not only one’s desires, but the also the motivations behind those desires. If you don’t have the ability to self-relate, this could be a difficult task.

With all that said, I would suggest that there are a great number of people living amongst us today who are simply the objects of their existence. Existentialists argue that all humans have an inherent need for meaning. This may be true, but I think that a lot of people perhaps haven’t yet realized that need. They go about their daily business, always looking for something new, something that might give them a sense of contentment. They seem to use material objects as a means for defining that sense of contentment or perhaps providing is a better word, while never taking a moment to ask themselves, “What is it that I really need?’ I think it is a sense of meaning they are looking for; they just don’t know it because they haven’t taken the time to be subjects of their existence.

So where do I sit on this continuum of object-subject? Well, at this point, I would lean towards the subject pole, while realizing the importance and large impact that the objectivity pole has on existence. I think to be extreme on any stance in life can be irresponsible. There aren’t many things that are cut and dry (although it sure would be nice if there were!), but having a balance and truly understanding the impact of all influences is crucial to succeeding in the pursuit of happiness.