An online retail website has come up with this tag line , and evoked some philosophical questions and arguments in my mind. I know I ramble at times but indulge me would you.
This phrase, "Be You", how does one go about interpreting it? First off, one must note that the statement is in the Imperative Tense i.e. it is giving it's readers an order, which, since they are being so nice and polite, they expect their viewers/readers to follow.
Now here's where my philosophical dilemma arises. If they want you to "Be You" now, since they've asked so sweetly, what were you being so far? Were you being someone else or did you not exist and are now brought into existence by this polite request. If it is the latter they refer to, do they deign to suggest that they are the reason for the existence of their viewers or consumers? If so, some could say they are trying to play God and create a religion of Shopping. This is a trend no longer far from reality. With the explosion of consumerism, Buying or shopping has become a way of life . And the consumers, always in search of something new as is inherent in human nature, flow with this trend without a moments rationalization.
On the other hand if the statement "Be You" is meant to indicate that we were being someone else so far, they may have a point. So many people today are so busy comparing themselves to others and trying so hard to mimic the ones they consider "Successful" or "Cool", they forget who they are themselves. Not only this , as we all know, a copy is never as good as the original, so in our pursuit to mimic the "successfuls" we end up as shadows , not only of the person we were imitating but also of our own true selves.
A physical issue one may have with us not being our selves, until we were ordered to do so, is, if we were not being our selves, and we were being someone else, who was being us ? Let me clarify this point. Science tells us that every body X is made up of energy that occupies a position in time and space. The time and space of X may overlap with the time and space of Y and the energy Y may replace X in it's original position as well. This does not mean that X has been destroyed, it just means that X now occupies a different position in time and space. In the same way, if we were no longer in our own position of self, it being occupied by the self of the person we were imitating, then in which position was our self . In simple terms, if we were being someone else, who was being us ? Are we to understand that the catalyst called "A Pursuit of being Successful" has brought about a reaction that has transformed our own energy into the energy of the person we are imitating ? And now this imperative statement is meant to reverse this reaction?
On a more metaphysical note, we take into consideration David Hume's theory that we are a bundle of all our experiences, that is we are a sum total of all our experiences. Now if , so far, we were not being our selves, and were being someone else, were the experiences we had our own or did they belong to the person we were imitating? If they were not our own since we were not being our selves, did we not experience anything in that time frame? Therefore, did we not exist? And how can we make peace with the idea that since these were experiences were those of someone else , that person somehow has experiences he or she has never experienced? But the best part about considering Hume's theory for the sake of this argument, is that if we believe that those were our experiences, we have always "Been Us" and we are no longer subject to this imperative statement. We can now feel free to mute this advertisement when it pops up, and enjoy 30 seconds of peaceful silence.
This phrase, "Be You", how does one go about interpreting it? First off, one must note that the statement is in the Imperative Tense i.e. it is giving it's readers an order, which, since they are being so nice and polite, they expect their viewers/readers to follow.
Now here's where my philosophical dilemma arises. If they want you to "Be You" now, since they've asked so sweetly, what were you being so far? Were you being someone else or did you not exist and are now brought into existence by this polite request. If it is the latter they refer to, do they deign to suggest that they are the reason for the existence of their viewers or consumers? If so, some could say they are trying to play God and create a religion of Shopping. This is a trend no longer far from reality. With the explosion of consumerism, Buying or shopping has become a way of life . And the consumers, always in search of something new as is inherent in human nature, flow with this trend without a moments rationalization.
On the other hand if the statement "Be You" is meant to indicate that we were being someone else so far, they may have a point. So many people today are so busy comparing themselves to others and trying so hard to mimic the ones they consider "Successful" or "Cool", they forget who they are themselves. Not only this , as we all know, a copy is never as good as the original, so in our pursuit to mimic the "successfuls" we end up as shadows , not only of the person we were imitating but also of our own true selves.
A physical issue one may have with us not being our selves, until we were ordered to do so, is, if we were not being our selves, and we were being someone else, who was being us ? Let me clarify this point. Science tells us that every body X is made up of energy that occupies a position in time and space. The time and space of X may overlap with the time and space of Y and the energy Y may replace X in it's original position as well. This does not mean that X has been destroyed, it just means that X now occupies a different position in time and space. In the same way, if we were no longer in our own position of self, it being occupied by the self of the person we were imitating, then in which position was our self . In simple terms, if we were being someone else, who was being us ? Are we to understand that the catalyst called "A Pursuit of being Successful" has brought about a reaction that has transformed our own energy into the energy of the person we are imitating ? And now this imperative statement is meant to reverse this reaction?
On a more metaphysical note, we take into consideration David Hume's theory that we are a bundle of all our experiences, that is we are a sum total of all our experiences. Now if , so far, we were not being our selves, and were being someone else, were the experiences we had our own or did they belong to the person we were imitating? If they were not our own since we were not being our selves, did we not experience anything in that time frame? Therefore, did we not exist? And how can we make peace with the idea that since these were experiences were those of someone else , that person somehow has experiences he or she has never experienced? But the best part about considering Hume's theory for the sake of this argument, is that if we believe that those were our experiences, we have always "Been Us" and we are no longer subject to this imperative statement. We can now feel free to mute this advertisement when it pops up, and enjoy 30 seconds of peaceful silence.
