How Society Forms Us as Who We Are

Then I will explore the different ways Fay defines the word “make” and how he thinks that society makes us into what we are. Society shapes us in ways that are sometimes below our level of observation while others are glaringly obvious.

In chapter one Fay discusses the solipsistic idea that “it takes one to know one.” It is clear that Fay does not entirely agree with this notion of understanding other people. Fay gives that this sensitivity is a vital portion of understanding people but as this quote suggests, something more is needed for understanding. Genuine understanding as Fay puts it consists of the ability to cognitively comprehend the experiences of others.

Being considerate of another’s experiences is fairly hollow unless there is a deeper understanding of the meaning underneath the experience. Fay uses the word decipher to explain what one needs in order for genuine understanding. Decipher primarily means that there is some sort of code that needs to be interpreted, translated and re-interpreted so that it can be understood by the party doing the deciphering. By this Fay is showing us that all these steps are necessary for genuine understanding above and beyond sensitivity.

Sensitivity as described by Fay is the idea that you have to be one to know one. Fay contends that this idea of sensitivity if a good start for understanding other individuals; however the meaning and motivation at the root of one’s experience is a key component in genuine understanding.

Fay supports this argument by introducing the idea that interpreting the meaning of experiences is required to understand. Fay gives us the example of Freud and the analysis of the Rat Man’s dream. Rat Man is experiencing a dream that he cannot understand, even if Freud could somehow manages to replicate the experience of the dream they would be no closer to understanding it. In this example it seems that being one is an un-necessary step towards knowing one. At the same time Fay is giving a counter example of the conclusion “it takes one to know one” and that message is that in some cases being one is not sufficient for knowing one.

I would agree that Fay’s arguments adequately provide enough evidence for the conclusion that “Genuine understanding goes beyond sensitivity.” The reason for Fay’s denial of this claim are made clear and precisely as he organizes the original argument and logically denies the premises which provides sufficient cause to deny the conclusion. Fay ends this discussion with a comment to further show that he thinks that anyone that has the common ability to experience experiences has the ability to understand the experiences of others.