Definition

In our previous conversation, we discussed the two sides of the coin that is personal development, i.e. self-discovery and self-creation. The outcome of self-discovery is usually a few traits that a person uses to describe and define themself.

Today, we will investigate the three categories of substantiations one uses to define oneself, and try to identify if one is better than the other.

Be willing to redefine yourself every day.

– Deepak Chopra

In my last article, I tried to tackle the age old debate of Self-Creation vs Self-Discovery. We concluded that neither creation nor discovery alone are suitable for impactful personal growth for any individual. As a matter of fact, we also saw the similarities in the results of two apparently distinct paths to self-enrichment.

Today, I want to double tap into one of these two dimensions, and break it down to better understand it myself, and hopefully help highlight the same to you, my beloved reader.

The facet I want to tear apart today is that of understanding oneself. There is very little one can think of that argues against this philosophy. The logic is iron clad. Unless you know yourself, it is very difficult to act in a productive fashion.

The philosophy of self-awareness and recognition has been around almost as long as human consciousness. Socrates said, “Know thyself. To know thyself is the beginning of wisdom”. And this has become the maxim which has become the basis of any supposed “self-improvement bible” out there in the market.

One who tries to take any meaningful action without the backing of self-understanding is stepping in uncharted territory, which often leads to one circling back to old patterns and behaviours, thereby sustaining the mental identity one has for oneself, be it consciously or unconsciously.

Now, how does one go about knowing oneself? It feels like I have become a broken record with the steps to do this, but it basically boils down to a lot, and I mean a whole LOT of reflection and introspection. Going through the mental and visual tapes of ourselves gives us a fair estimation of our current state.

But what does that reflection and introspection actually comprise of? Let’s unfold that, shall we?

From my modest assessment of the current climate, especially in the social media space, I can see three kinds of factors that shape people’s identities. In my very humble opinion, any person we meet is a combination of all these three factors. One or all of them might be evident with the persons behaviours and responses.

1. Events

This category of factors includes one or more pivotal events that have left such a mark on the psyche of an individual that they make those events a major part of their personality. These are largely the events that have happened to the person.

Don’t get me wrong, in no way am I implying that the person chooses to have it this way. Sometimes, the gravity of the event is such that it shakes the very core of the person, irrespective of their presumed mental resilience.

Earlier, I was convinced that it is predominantly negative events that hold the tendency to mould people, but very recently, I have changed this thought pattern for myself to accept any and all kinds of events can do so, given the right context and surroundings for the event.

2. Achievements

This category of events provide a positive boost of confidence in people. Mind you, these events might not be impactful enough for others to continually recognise them, but for some of us, these events become turning point for them in their lives. So much so that these events become a part of their personality.

The difference between events and achievements is that while events happen to the individual, achievements are usually a result of persistent efforts and situational benefits. Since these are directly in the control of an individual, these hold a dear place in all of our hearts, and we’d love to talk about them with anyone who’d listen.

3. Ideas

These are probably the most abstract category of factors that contribute to a person’s personality. What I mean by saying that is that these stem into a person’s psyche through conversations with or direction from others, reading and own experiences (which would be events and achievements).

This category of factors could be considered the most abstract, and yet holds the most power as well, since ideas can make people convince others, and do some great or pretty destructive stuff.

Conclusion

This article could easily be considered one that talks about conditioning, because our definitions of ourselves are greatly impacted by our conditioning. However, I’d like to end this article, as I often do, with a daunting question.

What is the best way to define oneself? Based on events, achievements or ideas?

If you stuck around this far, thank you for your time. If you enjoyed this, share this with one friend of yours whom you think will benefit from reading this. Thanks for reading, and I will see you in the next one. 🙂