I think there is no perspective other than ones own. Even if you try to model someone else’s perspective, it is still you modeling it. You can’t get around this barrier, as far as I know. We can only be ourselves—even if we perceive ourselves to be multitudes. It’s still an individual perception.
Reality—whatever you perceive to be out there—is therefore something you construct, mentally speaking. It is mediated by perception. Your perceptions may or may not accurately reflect what is out there. They may just reflect it well enough to manage to survive—mostly, anyway. There could well be much more to reality than we can perceive.
I agree with you that it’s a good practice to imagine you are viewing existence through many perspectives. It helps us be compassionate. But I think it is a mistake if you actually believe you are being successful at imagining all these other perspectives with any accuracy.
So in the end, it’s just oneself and one’s relationship with whatever we perceive to be out there. That’s what we try to make sense of. We assign meaning to our experience with our environment. The process of and result of that thinking is what I think of as existentialism.
Understanding this is probably best done using examples rather than theoretical discussion. For the last several years I have been dealing with a new diagnosis of bipolar disorder. During this time, I experienced myself in quite different ways. At some times I made choices that I would never have made at other times. At some times I believed life was nothing but permanent unendurable pain.
At some points I felt like I was looking at myself as a person within a person within a person. I felt like I was worthless. I felt like that was an inaccurate perception. I felt like it didn’t matter because the weight was too heavy. I felt like if I was dead, nothing would matter. I felt like life was the greatest gift of all, and so temporary, so why give it up voluntarily?
For me, existentialism is a process of trying to make sense of that all. I want to model myself in a way that can incorporate all those contradictory selves. This is not a definition, by the way. It’s just a way of explaining myself to myself. It explains why I exist, and it gives me a sense of what I should do with my life.
I say, “should,” but I don’t believe there are any shoulds—at least, not externally mandated shoulds. A “should” is my personal “should” which makes it a want. “Should” just gives the idea extra motivating power. Or not. Maybe it just makes me feel bad when I don’t do it.
But I’m concerned with making sense out of my own life. I have no idea whether the sense I make of my own life has any relevance for anyone else. I assume other people try to make sense out of their own lives, and I know that some people try to convince others that the sense they made is a universal sense for all lives. Since that sense usually makes no sense to me, I resent their efforts to impose their ideas on me, and I try not to make an effort to impose my ideas on others. I try to talk only about myself, and if they like it, good, and if not, I am not trying to convince them of anything.
Having others like the sense I make helps validate it, and without such validation, I might not stand so strongly behind it. I’m not sure of that, though, because I might also just shut up, instead of putting it out there for people to trample on. I have found that people say they appreciate it when I tell the full story—admitting things that most people would prefer to hide.
I think that everyone makes meaning out of their lives. They do it for themselves. Some of them talk about it. In this exchange, we may make modifications to our own meaning-making. It’s a wonderful thing. Quite interesting. It’s a bit of a problem if people think they have to impose their ideas on others.