What Does "Knowing Yourself" Mean?

Epistemology is a philosophical term. It examines the nature, source and scope of knowledge. It examines the rationality of justification and the resulting conceptual belief and various other issues. People who do this are called Epistemologists. This article should be evaluated in the light of this epistemological reality and expansions should be made on the basis of sociological reality based on this approach. I leave it to your discretion to evaluate this word, which does not suit some people's mouths, after this article of mine! 

Can a person who does not discover himself know himself? Ever since man began to look at himself as if he were looking at himself in a mirror, that is, ever since he developed the ability to divide himself as if he were two people and to be both the observer and the observed at the same time, he has always asked himself the question "what am I?". Knowing oneself is a call to oneself, a confrontation with oneself. Man actually calls himself to be moral! 

To know oneself. "Know thyself!" is one of the most common tools for moral education of human beings, which is used spontaneously in concrete situations. When our elders, especially our mothers and grandmothers, were raising us, didn't they always use this magic phrase to correct our wrong behaviour, especially in the public sphere? They tell us to "know yourself" in order to be a competent person, to be a good individual. In order to express anger, they would also say "know your limit!", which means the same thing. 

Self-knowledge is first and foremost a form of relationship with oneself. Historically, man must always ask himself the question. "What was I and what have I become?" To the best of one's knowledge, one analyses how human beings have evolved historically and come to the present day. In analysing the current situation, human beings are placed in the context of the human condition. In this way, human beings are given the opportunity to look at themselves critically as if they were looking in a mirror. I call this confrontation with oneself, which can only be possible by looking at oneself from a distance. If you approach the mirror and look at it from the distance of a nose, you cannot see anything. But if you look from a certain distance, you see everything. 

In order for a person to really know himself, certain prerequisites must be uncovered. In one of his songs, Neşet Ertaş, the great folk troubadour, the cheerleader of the steppe, says that if only people could know themselves. What do you think about this saying for this philosophical writing? "If there were no injustice in the world, there would be no fight," he says. The bard here points to the lack of self-knowledge of human beings as the cause of the injustices, fights and wars in the world and states that people should know themselves as a prerequisite for the establishment of an order based on justice and peace in the world. And Ertaş continues: "If human beings were born and human beings died, perhaps there would be no animals left in the world!" Here, Ertaş describes to us in just one verse what Rousseau tried to explain at length in his work The Source and Basis of Inequality Among People. 

When the bard says "Perhaps there would be no animals left in the world", he is not saying that other living beings other than human beings would have disappeared. The bard here means more barbarism with the concept of "animal". Let's look at the next two lines: "Animals in the wild with their flocks". What does the bard mean here? In my opinion, this: There are plenty of animals in the wilderness, untouched by human hands, unhumanised, unwritten. What is decisive here is expressed in the next verse: "One cannot get along with another". 

In the wild nature, then, animals cannot get along with each other because the relations between them are not organised, in other words, they are only spontaneous. Yes, this is exactly what the master says, and all I have to do is to pass on the lines of this beautiful song to you. 

Let us return to our subject again. If man could know himself, not only would the injustices or injustices and fights in the world disappear, but also other living beings would be civilised. Humanity would take a share from its civilisation to civilise its own relations. Man would replace the law of savagery by the law of civilisation in nature. But because man could not know himself, because he could not make love with "the huris of the human paradise", as our poet put it, because man could not establish his paradise on earth, the right was let loose in the wilderness. Master Ertaş's observation here is extremely meaningful and profound. The point is not that right and justice have been taken to the wilderness. On the contrary, what is meant to be said is that since man has not been able to establish his paradise on earth, he has carried the barbaric relations in the wilderness, where the big swallows the small and the strong oppresses the weak, into civilisation. Does the bard recognise this thinker here? Who knows. Look, he speaks as if he is Thomas Hobbes. Because Hobbes' description of the state of nature, which is a description of the human condition, presents the state of barbarism into which humanity has fallen. If my proposed interpretation is correct, this corresponds to the implications of our bard's concept of wilderness. 

What then is the way out of this barbarism that will bring justice and eternal peace to nature, the world of other living beings and human society? Isn't this the most important issue? This leads us to the commandment "know thyself!", which Rousseau points to and which has its roots in Anatolia. What does it mean to know oneself? Before attempting to answer this question here, I would like to quote another maxim, which is mentioned alongside this commandment and which is also recognised as Apollonian wisdom: "Surety, destruction has already come". Suretyship involves a relationship of distrust and dependence and means the loss of freedom. Self-knowledge, then, means that one's self-knowledge creates the conditions for one's emancipation. Thus, in this short poem, our poet expresses the longing that humanity has been longing to realise for thousands of years. We can call this the utopia of Neşet Ertaş. This is also the quest of philosophy. 

According to Rousseau, the sciences serve man to know himself. Isn't this the main purpose of philosophy anyway? This science confronts man more directly with himself, brings man face to face with himself. Thus, man looks at himself as if he were looking at himself in a mirror, moving away from the distance of the nose and going to the centre of supply. In fact, both the one who looks and the one who is looked at is the human being himself/herself. This gaze is also a prerequisite for knowing oneself. This also means being moral, which is the basis of philosophy. Because we know that in our daily language, people often say "be wise!" in the sense of being moral. Because reason gains meaning and value through morality. 

Self-knowledge is something that can only be realised by oneself. Knowing oneself means drawing a limit to oneself and one's values, in other words, giving them a framework. The boundary here does not limit freedom, but makes freedom possible. In this way, in contrast to the vague and, to use a colloquial expression, "spineless" personality that is common today, personality acquires a value. 

Science and philosophy serve to create the mental conditions necessary for human beings to voluntarily set limits to themselves. In other words, self-knowledge can only be voluntary. Morality and voluntariness are therefore also a matter of freedom. There are different ways and methods of knowing oneself. For example, watching a theatre play is also a method of confronting oneself, as is painting a picture; watching a film, as is looking at a painting; chatting with other people, as is stopping and thinking on one's own; playing with one's child makes one confront oneself, as does playing with an animal, listening to a concert, as does listening to music through headphones on one's own. In short, all the things we do in life, whether they are ordinary activities or higher mental or beautiful emotional endeavours, serve the self-knowledge of human beings. For, as Descartes pointed out, the sole purpose of the existence of all sciences is to serve the grounding and practical realisation of morality. 

Philosophy as a whole offers us the most fundamental and profound form of human self-confrontation. In those areas of philosophy that concern subjectivity rather than objectivity, that is, in the philosophy of the subject, the confrontation with oneself is at the same time the most, the most subtle and therefore the deepest pain that penetrates the human soul. In this respect, confronting oneself with oneself, of course, requires courage, perhaps a lot of courage, and of course strength of character. However, if the new picture of oneself that emerges as a result of this confrontation, as a result of one's reckoning with oneself, does not resemble a patched bundle or is not simply like a puzzle, that is, if it presents a holistic and harmonious picture in terms of internal and external relations, and if this finds the approval of the judgement organ called conscience, it also gives great peace of mind. This is perhaps one of the highest forms of individual happiness. Otherwise, a person would eat himself up for the rest of his life. 

Conscience is a very important phenomenon in human self-knowledge. I call it the voice of God, which only you can hear. This is necessarily formed in a moral person, and its formation begins at a prenatal stage. It is influenced by school life and friends, by the education and training received, by the work and profession, in short, by all work and neighbourhood relations, and by the more or less critical view of the world acquired as a result of the education received. 

Depending on how the conscience is formed, it has a different guiding effect on our behaviour. For example, unlike conscience, which is formed spontaneously, according to tradition and habit, conscience, which is formed consciously and actively, is painful when it is not lived accordingly, sometimes leaving a subtle and deep pain that can last for years and perhaps even a lifetime. I do not take into account here the states of selfishness, the distorted states of consciousness that mistake misery for happiness and laugh with joy at their misery. This is a separate subject in itself. For this, it takes courage to face oneself. 

In conclusion, we can say that the primary source of unscrupulousness and shamelessness is deliberate ignorance of oneself. Unscrupulousness and shamelessness arising from ignorance and ignorance are the most innocent of these, no matter how much they exceed the limits of innocence. These people are not brave. Because; they act most ignorantly and ignorantly. The form of this turned into ulterior motives is audacity. It is even impolite. In other words, audacity stems from ignorance and only the ignorant can be audacious. Courage requires comprehensive knowledge and consistency. Therefore, unscrupulousness and shamelessness arising from ignorance are the closest to forgiveness. As can be seen from what I have said, confronting oneself also requires strength of character. This is because the sum total of feelings, thoughts and values, in short, conscience, which is consciously formed as a result of confronting oneself, must be internalised. For various reasons, which may be subjective or objective, subjective and objective, people may confront themselves with very good intentions at first, but then misuse the knowledge they have acquired about the world and themselves, or may not follow the conscience they have formed as a result of confronting themselves due to weakness of will, moral personality distortion, disappointment or loss of hope in humanity, society and the future, or for some other reason. This is popularly called "educated ignorance". 

Being conscientious, i.e. being moral, honest and sincere towards oneself and others, requires the ability to think and act according to the conscience formed, i.e. to think and act in accordance with the truth without worrying about winning or losing. This is what is called acting justly. Therefore, confronting oneself requires strength of character as well as courage. Unscrupulousness and shamelessness arising from weakness of character and will are moral offences, often with legal consequences. It is not daring because it is informed immorality, but it is not courageous, contrary to what one might think at first glance. For it cannot afford to act justly according to the truth without taking into account both winning and losing. In other words, it is cowardly. 

Societies and people who fight and quarrel are, as morality dictates, not people who do good to each other, but people who do evil to each other. While man's feelings and emotions aim more at his physical well-being, his being an intelligent being leads him to love "justice and order" and consequently aims at his spiritual health. 

Adam Smith showed in his Theory of Moral Sentiments that this sentiment aims at the happiness of others and of oneself at the same time. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels redefine conflicts of interest and offer a theory for getting out of this situation. Marx describes a new situation, which is not very different in principle from the situation described by Rousseau in The Social Contract, in which the interests of all are harmonised with the interests of all and the interests of all with the interests of the whole. Whatever is done, the interests of the elders will always remain the same, but the prejudices of the people, because they are not centred on a fixed point, are more subject to change; the prejudices of the people can be worsened, changed, multiplied or reduced. In this respect, then, education can still be useful, and therefore the friend of truth should direct his attention to it. 

Go, educate, enlighten the people, as the great thinker Rousseau said! He has the hope. This is the perspective Rousseau proposes to get out of the state of self-consciousness in which he finds himself. And that is what I am repeating, I say go and educate the people. 

Stay with respectful love.