by JUSTIN KIM
“Every discipline must be framed by a theological perspective; otherwise these disciplines will define a zone apart from God, grounded literally in nothing.” –John Milbank
There is an inbred, genetic, innately psychological need to be an individual. For example, the teenage years are a time for individuality to emerge, no matter how objectively similar adolescents are to each other. “I want to be who I am and dye my hair green like the rest of my green-haired friends!”
Toddlers want to do whatever others do. Siblings think that whatever big brother is doing is always cooler. The toy you’re playing with isn’t as fun as the toy he’s playing with. These thoughts dissolve once puberty hits, and the “I” believes itself to be emerging.
This craving for individuality, however, is not only found in the monad, but in society as well. From the classroom to the casket, every social institution looks down upon a lack of individuality. Synonymous designations include “poser”, “loser”, “unoriginal”, “imitator”, “wannabe”, “commonplace”, “low-class”, “plagiarist”, “pedestrian”, “in-the-box thinker”, “part of the system,” and so on.
Students are encouraged to draw their own creative pictures. Funeral services should be unique and “the way he/she would have wanted it.” And is this why society is fascinated with what’s new, cutting-edge, and “next”?
Yet ironically, though monads desire individuality, social trends intentionally or unintentionally do away with any derivative of independence. By definition, that is what a trend is. “I want to be me, but let me find out what everyone else is doing to see if that is really me.”
Atheistic models and their sub-currents, such as evolutionary biology, claim diversity was and is achieved through random trait survival. If a noodle of a particular trait survives the harsh environmental conditions of the colander, then its phenotype is seen in nature (that is, the kitchen sink). So nature waits patiently for the gene pool to morph (or mess up, depending on how you look at it) and if it survives, then poof! –a new trait, or the creation of uniqueness, or when applied to social psychology, individuality, is achieved.
However, though a rational model, uniqueness is stomped out by the conditions of the environment. Genetic mutations, assuming diversity has its hope in the malfunction of RNA polymerase, are at the mercy of the goddess of nature and the elements. Given enough time, the same survival traits should be manifested in all species until one emerges and all divergences are expunged (until the next great fad in mutations–sound familiar?).
Based on the monotheistic narrative of Scripture, Christianity states that diversity had a point of origin. God, who has the innate characteristic of diversity within His essence (dubbed the Trinity), created all possibilities of individuality in the beginning within humanity as well as other species. Adam and Eve were to “be fruitful” and spread out the potential of individual traits and the complex combination of these traits through their posterity.
True individuality is found in the mental blueprint of the original Mechanic who installed these traits and designed a complex, unique product. We have a firm confidence that there is only one of us in this universe, just as there is only One of Him in this universe. We do not need to compare ourselves with the rest of the universe or the rest of society to see this, and even if we do, we will end up losing our individuality in the process.
So then this inbred, genetic, innately psychological need was in fact designed and implanted, not the product of gene pool morphing. In turn, the common desire of people within our society to find individuality is a great argument that we were designed to be individuals.
Before thinking, one must question whether they are thinking. Too often, reproducing the traits (thoughts) of another species (individual) is understood to be survival (thinking). Rather, true thinking comes from individuality. And the individuality of the creature comes from the Creator. Divine ontology, as John Milbank asserts, is a foremost prerequisite to proper epistemology.
If you are interested in joining our mailing list, please submit your email below. 
