I've just finished reading the homonculus manga, I found myself a bit confused as I read a lot of my starting beliefs were challenged.
Is humanity inherently selfless, or is humanity inherently selfish?
Is everyone self absorbed?
What creates a character?
I am undeniably to some certain "extent" is shaped by the people around me, through my experiences with them and the lack of experiences with "The Other". I can't deny the experiences with my parents shaped my character through good and bad, my friends and ultimately people who has been very close to me, my peers in my startup and my ex lover. These experiences shaped my worldview and how I see the world, through good and bad.
But issit really all there is to it?
This is where I propose, the unconscious and the conscious. I feel that the majority of our character is shaped by our uncoscious, by the experience with the other, the emotions that went through the other. I occasionally opt out for socialization because I experienced deep and crucial pain of the death of hope, expectations, and disappoinment from the death of my startup. Tragic and crucial events in our life have a major influence on how we shape our character. But isn't this just the same as saying the brain is elastic? If the tragic or crucial events in our life influenced us, then what is the default canvas of character? Is it white as it is inherently kind or is it black as it is inherently selflish? Is it even a different between black and white? Does someone can do something really good seemingly selfless while out of their own selfish wants? To fill each to its own void and run away from each to its own unpleasurable emotions and sad times they don't want to experience again?
The height of emotions and meaning. I think when it comes to this, I think it's safe to say, that the influence of emotions correlating to crucial events in our lives shaped us, The conscious still have a power to reign over the unconscious emotions and bind, glue, things out through the use of cognition and tame the unconscious.
Yes it is true that the brain is elastic as how the self is carved by the experience with other people, but the self still have the ability to carve itself only through cognition. Through subjective morality and ethics, how people see their actions that shaped their character as divided by "good" and "bad" is not only perceived by other people but also perceived by the self. But what does the self really believes in? What are the words that came out from your head when someone asks you, "Who are you really are? What do you seek in this life? What is the point of all of these? What is your meaning in life?" The self will unequivocally shaped the answer with some account on how he wants to be seen by the other based on his answer, but isn't he just dilluding himself? Warping his sense of self based on how others want to see him? The answers of those questions may be best answered when he is alone, almost as if standing in front of the mirror but not to see the reflection of his physical outward appearance but his inward appearance, what is he really is on the inside? What does he want?
I explained in great lengths coming from observation and stories as old as time regarding human sadness, on how it came to be, and how there are patterns on how there are at least certain void that one at least fulfill. Seeing what the self is from the lens of what the self wants to be and what is missing from himself.
First is the void of belonging. The void of belong is crucial as the nature of our birth is that we are placed between two "Others", our parents. Take away one or two parts of the other, the child will have "trouble" as it lost his sense of belonging. This applies not only between the self to their parents but also the self towards the environment that they live in. In work for example, an employee will beocme noticably jaded if they find himself not belonging to the culture. We can't say for sure what is good or bad, what we can measure is if someone "wishes the condition to be something else that he is not having." Thus the word "The Void" for me fits perfectly, there is no good or bad about the void, the void just the void, something is supposed to fill it, yet it is absent.
Second, Void of biological survival. The void of biological survival is self explanatory, the self can lives indefinetely surviving with adequate food, water, and sleep. Though, in the ever increasing pace of modern life and rapid birth population, it is ever increasingly "competitive" in nature to fulfill these demands, at least for some certain parts of the world. This can gives a levelled sense of anxiety where one is worried about income, worried of not having enough money, worried of not having a shelter to live. This is all very normal human concerns.
Third and I feel the most debatable void by other people, the void of purpose. The void that shows itself that asks "Is this all there is to life?" The void of purpose demands the self to make itself, this shows itself when the self finally graduates from the confines of guidance, and the decision that the self make is more stronger as it holds more risk as the self realizes that he is on his own now as he makes his own purpose in living.
Take any of these three void, the self will be in shambles, confused, anxious, or sad. Fullfilments of those voids are just basically the links of "Good things" as I quote George Atwood:
Sometimes what happens in the fall into the abyss is that the sustaining events of our lives cease to occur. Sanity is sustained by the network of validating, affirming connections that exist in a person’s life, connecting to other beings. If those links fail, one falls. Strip any person of their sustaining links to others, and that person falls. No one is immune, because madness is a possibility of every human life.
Ok so that is the baseline of happiness fulfillment, but what is the baseline of "Intents" on likes and motivation.
I think the default is the brain is inherently elastic, molded by the hands experience and emotions. Self cognition is just a way for the self to mold itself.
It can be a nihilist, existentialist, selfish, selfless, or whatever the fuck their hands want it carves itself to be. It can believes humanity is inherently selfish or inherently sefless but the source of truth to their belief is again, through experience.
The self can meet a selfish asshole and now the sense of self can warp the sense of the everyone in the world to be misogynistic or misandry. The belief can warp the self and mold the self's view of the world stopping the self to see the world as it is rather to see the world only the things the self wanted to see that affirms to his believe. Most often is that what they want is what they get.
As in, if the self is kind as continously kind to others, the others most often will return their kindness. If the self approach the other with rotten assumptions about the other, the self would probably interpret the act of the other that re-affirms the self own belief.
If the self think of itself as powerless, the self just molds itself to its own definition of powerless. If the self think of itself as powerful, the self just molds itself to its own definition of powerful and in control.
The self is by default is mold-able, yet he needs to go through his own choice to choose to mold itself.
As much as the definition of a "good" and "evil" character is not only percieved by the self, it is also perceived by the other. No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks. Through ethics and morality, the character is both shaped by the hands of his own experience with the other and his own hands.