Individuality

It is especially in "feeling" that what we call individuality has its

roots. The individual really means the "indivisible," and in the strict

sense of the word need mean nothing more than the ego, and the unity of

consciousness of which we have already spoken. But through a change in the

meaning of the word we have come to mean much more than that by it. This

individuality forces itself most distinctly upon our attention in regard< r />
to prominent and distinguished persons. It is the particular determination

of their psychical nature that marks them out so distinctly, and it often

rather escapes analysis and characterisation than is attained by it.

"Individuum est ineffabile." It can only be grasped intuitively and by

experience. And people of a non-reflective mood are usually more

successful in understanding it than those who reflect and analyse. It

requires "fine feeling," which knows exactly how it stands towards the

person in question, which yet can seldom give any definite account of his

characteristics. Individuality usually meets us most obviously in

exceptional men, and we are apt to contrast these with ordinary men. But

on closer examination we see that this difference is only one of degree.

"Individuality" in a less marked manner belongs to them all, and where it

exists it is a distinctly original thing, which cannot be derived from its

antecedents. No psyche is simply derivable from other psyches. What a

child receives from its parents by "heredity" are factors which, taken

together, amount to more than the mere sum of them. The synthesis of these

is at once the creation of something new and peculiar, and what has been

handed down is merely the building material. This can be felt in an

intensified and striking degree in regard to "pronounced individuality,"

but careful study will disclose the fact that there are no men quite

alike. This kind of "creative synthesis," that is, the underivability of

the individual, was the element of truth in the mythologies of

"creationism" held by the Church fathers, or in the theory of the

"pre-existence of the soul" maintained by Plato and others.



And from this point of view we must safeguard what has already been said

in regard to the culture and gradual development of our psychical inner

nature. It is true that the "soul" does not spring up ready-made in the

developing body, lying dormant in it, and only requiring to waken up

gradually. It really becomes. But the becoming is a self-realisation. It

is not true that it is put together and built up bit by bit by experience,

so that a different being might develop if the experiences were different.

It is undoubtedly dependent upon experience, impressions, and

circumstances, and without these its development would be impossible. But

these impressions act as a stimulus, developing only what is previously

inherent. They do not themselves create anything. A characteristic

predetermination restricts the development to comparatively narrow limits.

And this is identical with the individuality itself. A man may turn out

very different according to circumstances, education, influences. But he

would nevertheless recognise "himself" under any circumstances. He will

never become anything of which he had not the possibility within him from

the very beginning, any more than the rose will become a violet if it is

nurtured with a different kind of manure.