Collective Spirit vs. Personal Discernment
People say and behave through the spirit by which they were inspired, not their intrinsic organic thoughts, selves, or words. The discussion, therefore, becomes more about protecting the spirit that inspires the masses rather than conviction of individualized, real, raw, self-discovered truth and integrity. How does the media propagate the spirit of which you are inspired by? How about the portrayal? How is it received and interpreted? People embody this rather than their individuality, completely immersed in the collective hood, especially if the collective hood is protected under the guise of virtue as though virtue is a tool to propagate. This makes the discourse unproductive and cheap; it is precisely why personal discernment is necessary to understand the difference between information and truth. There are always numerous amounts and different information, but there is only one truth.
Suppose the spirit of one’s inspiration is at the center of the discourse. In that case, the race for productive conversation is centered around portrayal and naivety rather than substance and originality by default. For example, while it is easy to embody the portrayal of something, the thoughts, which will most definitely become actions at some point, may be the opposite of the embodiment due to lack of thought during the initial stages-creating a climate where basics of ethical understanding could easily be bypassed and human beings’ ability to commit atrocities are unchecked. This is not about being Jesus or not; it is about whether one has basic personal discernment and logic. Are we ignoring this basic concept now? Why is this basic concept not recognized?
I was babysitting two kids of elementary school age for a large portion of my college days, and I was constantly inspired, humbled, and surprised by the spirit and ideas presented by these kids-more than by other adults. It is not that they were more intelligent; they were just more original, without the intention of commodifying it. And nowadays, that has become more rare than smarts.
At first, I thought it was just the Turkish-Dutch family’s brilliance and parenting styles. Especially since both of their parents are incredibly accomplished professors and amazingly kind people. Then, when they had a play date, they invited an American family over with two kids exactly of the same age; I was inspired by these kids as well-besides the fact that one kid constantly wanted to munch on bagels while simultaneously drooling for some reason. Then, the dinner parties, birthday gatherings, babysitting for different families, and playgrounds confirmed this universal observation I had of kids, all of whom would yell, “Hi, Miss Proper!” and run over to hug me. I asked them what it meant, but they simply kept insisting that it was just my name. I thought it was better than them calling me sleepy head because some days, I would be so exhausted, tired, and worn out that I could not help but fall asleep, and then the kids would slap me to wake me up. Then, the parents of those kids and I would joke about how simply blinking is like a break, and small talk feels like a marathon when you are with kids and juggling other things at the same time. It’s as though you have temporarily partial facial paralysis from exhaustion. Some days, my eyes would twitch so much from the sheer amount of energy of the kids combined with the things on my plate that I had to get done that I could not see properly. Genuinely felt like an NPC. Scratch that, I WAS an NPC.
Nonetheless, these kids had depth in their creative and unique ideas, originality, stories, and aspirations that were hard not to notice.
Then I wondered, why was this?
The answer lay in their organic nature; they did not have the spirit of someone else speaking through them; they were speaking from their unique individualized selves, without the concern element regarding how they wished to be portrayed and, therefore, perceived.
It made me question to what extent my perception was of embodiment of shallow inspiration and spirit of something else, or my own, uniqueness.
Previously, my wonderful parents shielded me from harsh truths that still existed in the world. The semi-scary feeling from this realization was that there was no way to seek validation or verification by relying on others to clarify these questions since others were in the same boat, irrespective of whether they realized this or not. Additionally, they had their own angle of intentions, each determined by their place and experience, which meant that what they would say was information, not the truth. This was confirmed by their self-centered narration of my life, their distorted perception, and their overestimation of their importance in my life once I started observing through controlled data instead of performing. While these are all very natural traits of a human being, they are not accurate, for they are rooted in information, not the truth. Essentially, I was on my own, ultimately, if I wanted to know the truth and do myself justice. However, I realized that it is neither good nor bad; it was simply a fact that I overlooked beforehand and, therefore, needed some serious seek for an answer rooted in truth. Even though this self-imposed existential crisis necessitated a period of homeless-looking presentability and some questionable dying of the hair, it was necessary and truthful. It’s so comically pathetic and stinks of loser-ness, but so goddamn truthful.
That’s indeed when I realized I would very well be royally screwed and thoroughly cooked physically if I didn’t find a true essence and purpose that aligned with my head, heart, and body to optimize my ability to put food on my plate without losing my sanity due to physical limitations-and without compromising my spirit. After all, these are all I have, as I genuinely am nothing other than these, and I have nothing better to do. There was a sense of self-assuredness in fully accepting this premise and working with it in my own way to drive purpose and meaning. I sure know when to just shut up, stay in my lane, keep my head down, and move forward, but this is only possible because I actively and intentionally tested my limits. In doing so, I would also be giving back in my own unique way to those older and wiser individuals who had worked hard to teach me virtue.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the discourse of free speech is somewhat of an unnecessarily complicated topic. The tension between expressing oneself through the collective spirit of the majority culture and speaking from personal discernment presents significant ethical challenges.
The collective spirit, or the dominant values and beliefs of the majority culture, often inspires individuals to express themselves in ways that resonate with broader societal norms. This phenomenon can be observed in various social movements, where the collective voice amplifies calls for justice and equity. The collective spirit can unify individuals, creating a powerful force for change by rallying around common causes. However, being inspired doesn’t take much nowadays; there are platforms all around that monetize and commodify this need, and emphasis on freedom of reach over freedom of speech is prevalent. People adopt a spirit that inspires them, as though they are shopping. You turn to the left, you see cliche; right, you see cliche, once again nowadays. The cliche and attempted inspiration are just another existence, performative, baseless, and corny, and have now lost their luster. Simply adding trending background noise and lip-syncing or overlaying slow-motion videos of random people, same narration through duplication, and dominant discourse exemplify this phenomenon among many other types; must I name more, I think we all inherently know and recognize the BS. Such behaviors, which have become all too common today, often come across as excessively cringe-worthy and clichéd, making it difficult to take them seriously, and I’m sure there will, once again, be at least one idiot who takes this realization as a shallow inspiration again.
It is rather the lack of agenda-driven intention and originality with no noise that “inspires” me more. This means that the very thing designed to get a response out of me as an adult is now making me realize that there were intentions behind them.
The ethics of expressing oneself solely through the collective spirit are complex. When people speak and behave primarily through the lens of majority culture, they may sacrifice their authenticity, originality, and logical discernment even without realizing or being self-aware, for it is the norm, becoming mere echoes of prevailing sentiments rather than genuine contributors to the discourse. This dynamic can lead to the suppression of minority voices and the reinforcement of conformist attitudes, undermining the richness of diverse perspectives essential for a healthy democratic society.
Philosophically, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of the “general will” highlights the tension between individual freedom and collective decision-making. While the general will represents the collective interests of society, Rousseau acknowledges the potential for conflict with individual liberty. This conflict underscores the ethical challenge of balancing collective inspiration with personal authenticity.
Personal discernment involves critically evaluating one’s beliefs and values based on individual experiences and moral reasoning. This approach to speech prioritizes authenticity and integrity, ensuring that expressions are genuinely reflective of one’s principles rather than mere reiterations of majority views.
Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of autonomy underscores the importance of personal discernment. According to Kant, individuals must act according to their own rational judgment and moral principles to achieve true autonomy. This notion of autonomy is fundamental to the concept of free speech, as it empowers individuals to contribute unique perspectives to the societal dialogue.
Legally, the protection of personal discernment is enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of speech. The framers, influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, recognized that safeguarding individual expression was crucial for the pursuit of truth and the functioning of democracy. Supreme Court decisions, such as Brandenburg v. Ohio, emphasize the importance of protecting speech, even if it deviates from majority opinions, to maintain a dynamic and open marketplace of ideas.
While personal discernment is essential, it thrives within a collective framework that protects and nurtures it. John Stuart Mill’s concept of liberty in “On Liberty” articulates the necessity of balancing individual freedom with collective protections to prevent harm and uphold rights. Mill argues that diverse opinions and critical debate are vital for societal progress, reinforcing the need for a legal and societal structure that safeguards personal discernment.
The U.S. legal system, through judicial interpretations and constitutional protections, provides a robust framework for protecting individual speech. Landmark cases such as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan highlight the judiciary’s role in defending the right to free speech against majority pressures, ensuring that minority and dissenting voices can be heard.
The ethical use of free speech requires a delicate balance between collective inspiration and personal discernment. While the collective spirit can unify and amplify important causes, it is essential to ensure that individual voices remain authentic and reflective of personal values. This balance fosters a richer, more inclusive discourse that values diversity and critical thinking.
Hannah Arendt’s exploration of the public sphere emphasizes the importance of individual contributions to the collective dialogue. Arendt argues that the vitality of the public realm depends on the active participation of individuals who bring their unique perspectives and judgments to societal discussions. This interplay between personal discernment and collective dialogue is crucial for democratic vitality and continuous progress.
Navigating the ethics of free speech involves recognizing the value of both the collective spirit and personal discernment. While collective inspiration can drive significant social change, personal discernment ensures authenticity and moral integrity in individual expressions. By integrating these elements thoughtfully, we can maintain a dynamic and inclusive discourse that respects the democratic principles of free speech and the ethical responsibility to use this freedom wisely.
