Humanity today is considered “plugged-in”. We have, and some claim to even need, constant access to our phone. Most people have laptops, iPads, desktop computers, and many other electronics on top of their phones with which they can access basically the same technology, and the largest trend within this technology is Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tinder… all the social media conglomerates that make up the contemporary lifestyle. It is considered bad business to not have a social profile in today’s economy, and individuals without these outlets are often considered social pariahs, or old beyond obsolescence.

This social media technology is a relatively new phenomenon that has no precedence to anything remotely similar within the entirety of human existence. That’s quite something. This massive overhaul of civilization within such a brief amount of time must surely have altered the way human beings behave, and I hope to examine some of these consequences.

The three events that alerted me to the issues I’m going to discuss are the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, the increase in clientele of art galleries and museums that allow photography for the sake of the selfie, and the capturing of newsworthy events in the form of the selfie.

Judging by the fact that I used the word “selfie” twice already, it’s pretty safe to say that the insertion of the ‘self’ is the issue. I don’t believe that it is an issue of selfishness or narcissism that is at play, as the term “selfie” seems to imply, because selfishness is about hoarding and social media is supposed to be about sharing. If the Social Being was selfish, they would simply be absorbing the experience of the museums for themselves, and would not be donating to charity at all. I don’t believe narcissism is fully involved either because what is behind the person in the selfie often has as much value as the person taking the picture.

However, the Social Being is not sharing anything in the strictest sense of the word either. If one were to share the experience of an art piece in a gallery with others, even over social media, they would probably find a better representation than a cell phone picture could provide, and would need to write more than 140 characters to properly convey the emotional response or cultural impact of the piece. If one sought to raise money for ALS, they would talk about the seriousness of Lou Gehrig’s disease, its terrible symptoms and possible treatments, and the need of special equipment that the donated money could be put towards. Spreading the news would be important in-and-of-itself, and pictures would be accompanied by articles by professional journalists that have legally binding accountability and time to do the research that would provide the complete story.

The old criticism of society was that we were reckless consumers who needed material goods in order to create meaning in our lives. We bought useless products when their only value was their accumulation. I no longer believe this to be the case. We no longer define ourselves by the objects we own, nor do we need to worry about Fight Club telling us that these objects own us. Most people can’t afford to accumulate material goods these days anyway.

But rather than shed the consumer nature and embrace self-created meaning, we have internalized the process and become products ourselves. We no longer accumulate goods to fulfill our lives, we accumulate pseudo-experiences to increase our capital worth. We want others to consume us, and to do that we use social media to extol our charitable nature, our appreciation of the arts, and our role as citizen journalists. Why else have a thousand followers on Facebook and Twitter if we only ever actually deal with a few close friends and family members in our everyday lives? The reason that celebrities and businesses maintain their social media profiles is because their branding requires them to advocate themselves in whatever ways they deem marketable, and it is this same process that individuals follow to maintain their own nature as a product to be consumed.

If we are not trying to sell ourselves as products, if we are truly charitable, cultured, and socially conscious, then why add our selves into the process? Why does allowing “selfies” in museums increase their clientele? Why do social causes like Movember and the Ice Bucket Challenge raise more money than the deadlier heart and pulmonary diseases? Why do more than a third of Americans get their news from social media, and what does the handsome Soren Bowie have to say about that?

We are not our social media profile, just as McDonalds is not their advertising. The Social Being is a hamburger patty covered in Vaseline in order to make it look shiny, and the person behind it is inevitably going to be a slumped-over burger with the lettuce spilling everywhere and making a God-damned mess.

The Social Being is not only a deception to others, but it is dehumanizing and degrading us into being products rather than people. The Social Being goes beyond objectification, because objects can at least be appreciated for their own merit, whereas products only have value in their marketability.

The obvious solution is to remove ourselves from social media, to engage in person to person relationships and forego the whole demeaning process, and this is a solution I would openly advocate. But for those who choose to remain on social media, if you remove yourself from the process, this may counteract the cheapening of your Self. Try to think of social media like you’re having a conversation with a person or a small group. When having a conversation, you don’t cram yourself into the other person’s face, or constantly make mention of your own involvement in the story. You’re already the one telling the story; that necessitates your involvement or interest by definition.  When speaking in a personal conversation, you’re also aware of your audience. You speak to the person or the group, not so that those around might overhear.

The most valuable thing a person can do is be authentic to themselves and to those around them. Social media precludes that.

Existence before Essence: When we create our online dating profile, it is a blank slate. Its existence precedes its essence, and its essence will be whatever we choose to fill it with. We create our own selves in the form of our self-summary and interests. If our online dating profile were completed before their formulation, if their essence preceded their existence, we would be stuck with whatever character traits were assigned to us. However, because we begin as a tabula rasa, we are free to choose which HBO series defines our personality.

Bad Faith: To exist in bad faith is to deny the true nature of our freedom. If I say that I am ‘easy-going’, ‘fun’, and ‘outdoorsy’, I am objectifying my being by limiting myself to only being ‘easy-going’, ‘fun’, and ‘outdoorsy’. If I were to truly be ‘easy-going’, I could never be anything other than ‘easy-going’. I may have been ‘fun’ in the past, as my past is set in stone, and therefore can be defined objectively, but to claim presently to be ‘fun’ is to deny my possibility of being anything else. I am not ‘outdoorsy’ in the way an inkwell is an inkwell. I am not what I am, and I am what I am not; that is to say, I am my possibilities, not my facticity.  These claims to be something limit my freedom by implying that I cannot be anything.

The flip side of bad faith is to attempt to live strictly within freedom, to avoid choice. However, to not choose is to choose not to choose. When we flake out on a potential partner because we believe that the next possibility could be The One, focusing on trivial imperfections to justify the inability to commit, it is because of the realization that to make a choice is to nihilate all other choices. Online dating condemns us to freedom by bombarding us with an infinity of choices, and choose we must.

The Other: We know of the existence of the Other and eliminate solipsism by recognizing that when someone visits our profile, we experience their Look by seeing the pop-up indicating that they have viewed our page. However, this Look turns us into an object. We become our self-summary when viewed by the Other, and this is how they will perceive us. They cannot know me the way that I know myself; they can only know me through my list of favourite musicians, and so to them I am someone who likes Pink Floyd. I become the Pink-Floyd-fan object. My freedom is thus eliminated, and the only way to combat this encroachment is to attempt to objectify them in turn by visiting their page and reducing their freedom to an object who likes some indie hipster band.

Negation: When we go out on a first date with CuteKittenz88 and see that she is larger than her pictures imply, we do not experience fat-CuteKittenz88, we experience not-fit-CuteKittenz88. The expectations that we possessed are negated by our first date impressions, and it is the experience of this negation that shows the implicit non-being in everyday human life.

Nausea: The contingency of online dating, the accidental nature of any romantic encounter or lack thereof, truly shows the meaninglessness of existence.

Reality can be boiled down to a simple equation: perception + experience. What we receive via our senses is interpreted by the knowledge we have gained by our experiences, and this outcome is what we call reality.

If, for example, I existed during the era of the Roman Empire, I would perceive the sun arcing across the sky, and the experiences of my upbringing would inform me that it was Apollo in his chariot. If I had never experienced anything to tell me differently, then that is how I would view reality. It’s not that I’m dumb or wrong, it’s that my reality is shaped by the things I have learned and by the things that I see (touch, taste, etc.) I wouldn’t believe Apollo was the sun if I never saw the sun nor felt its warmth in the first place, after all.

There is also the weight of the perception versus the weight of the experiences. Copernicus, to stick with the sun analogy, would have grown up under the pretense of a geocentric universe. However, his observations towards the stars overcame his learned experiences, and perception won out, creating the very first experience of a heliocentric universe.

The only reason we look on the Roman version of me as ridiculous for believing that the sun is the god Apollo is because our species has the collective experience of the Copernican revolution. It is shared in our media, literature, dialogues concerning the universe, etc. and so our experiences regarding the reality of the sun are quite weighty.

For example, if today I saw the sun blip from one part of the sky to another, seemingly teleporting across the horizon, the weight of my experiences would override my perception. I would assume I had fallen asleep, and woken up at a different time of day, or that it was a trick of the light that caused me to misperceive the solar blip. I would interpret these perceptions, and therefore reality, in such a way that would make sense with regard to the experiences I had accumulated over my lifetime. I would discount my perceptions as false, and carry on as if they had never happened, leaving reality unaltered.

However, if new experiences availed themselves to me, for example if I learned that others than myself had seen the blip, if it made the newspapers the next day, scientists were exclaiming bafflement, etc. then the weight of my original perception would increase and reality would shift to accommodate these new experiences.

One might argue that this subjective reality works only on an individual scale, and when joined into a collective, such as through peer-reviewing, or replicability, this would give a glimpse into a more objective reality. However, I would disagree and say that a collection of subjects is still subjective. The addition of new perceptions and a greater amount of experiences still falls within my original definition.

New ideas are frequently met with derision and ridicule because of that very same collective agreement of experiences among a society that dictate what we call reality. Copernicus and Galileo were keenly aware of that distrust of new versions of reality, even though today we dismiss those who condemned them as ignorant. Was it because the Church was afraid of losing its tenuous monopoly on the truth, or was it for the same reasons that today we would mock and scorn someone who adamantly claimed that leprechauns existed? Even potentially lock them up in the loony bin? Is it because there necessarily cannot be leprechauns, or is it because humanity has never had a weighty enough experience of leprechauns in order to accept them into our collective reality?

Even if you disagree with me, and believe that not only is there some kind of ultimate, objective reality, but human beings can access it (outside of our sensory perceptions and our experiences, (?)somehow(?)) then that is only because the experiences in your life have given such weight to that “objective” view of reality that your perception of my ideas does not hold up against them.