The idea that each of us consists in reality of multiple selves is not new. What may be new is our tendency to call all these personæ and potential personæ “selves,” as though they all somehow belonged to a central command station which... more
The idea that each of us consists in reality of multiple selves is not new. What may be new is our tendency to call all these personæ and potential personæ “selves,” as though they all somehow belonged to a central command station which we entitle “me” or “I”. Wasn’t it Walt Whitman who declared: “I contain multitudes”? And it was Goethe who asked about the beings struggling within: “Two? Why only two?” In Homer, the heroes at Troy all had personalities and considered themselves to be themselves in most daily intercourse or when they were speaking. But even in this last case—speech-making—their “self” could be subject to possession by a god or daimonion who may inspire their tongues to wingèd words of wisdom or to emotional displays of suicidal stupidity. “What god was it who brought this rage upon me?” they may ask. Or even: “What god was it who put these dishonourable thoughts in my mind?” One was conceived as being put “out of one’s head” under the influence of any of a multiplicity of divine or semi-divine beings. The “I” is more of receiving station than a central command post.
