The law of non-contradiction: X cannot have the adjective q and not-q at the same time. Within logical systems this of course works and is fundamental for a lot of ideas, theories, etc. But, it has expanded too far; it expanded into the human realm with the assumption that an individual cannot be both an individual and not an individual.
The law of non-contradiction made it so that one cannot say that a person is both an individual and a part of a group. They cannot be both the private person and the public person; only one or the other is allowed at one time. For some reason I am not sure of yet, the Enlightenment chose the individual, private person as the main focus of reason/logic. This is the point that I think one must put on the breaks.
Only through being aware of one’s connectedness can one really accomplish anything. In other words, humans are a social animal, I am personally incredibly okay being alone for periods of time, but I know that being alone all of the time is both boring and bad for me. A lot of great thinkers have struck on this idea: Aristotle being a big early one, there is Alexis De Tocqueville in Democracy in America, he calls this idea “self-interest rightly understood” (or something along those lines), Feminists with the ethics of care have hit it, Jesus with “love thy neighbor” (if you’re feeling religious), for the underdogs we have Marx who talks about this idea, Nietzsche considers humans as herd-animals, wanting to get more scientific our cousins the primates, apes etc. tend to be social, not to mention our friends: dogs.
Dogs brings up an interesting subject with cats and dogs being usually two of the most popular pets: cats are solitary and dogs are more social. Could this be an image of this unusual spot humans find themselves in? We somehow go back and forth between the two extremes of being solitary and social. The problem with the law of non-contradiction is that it does not allow one to be both or work on being both at the same time.
It also seems that no one wants to attempt to deal with both of these natures at the same time. I think it could be a solution to the theological problem of evil, I also definitely think being aware of this back-and-forth allows for a much more fluid and useful ethics. It also allows for massive critiques of a lot of Western society: education and economics specifically. I intend to go into these later.
So consider, which is “more” human? The individual in the “state of nature” as our society is founded upon or the individual in a family/society as the ethics of care and virtue respectively are roughly founded on?