This is all very idealistic. I think it is too idealistic. Self-consciousness in some ways is a trick and true self-knowledge may be detrimental to human survival. Knowing the full truth about yourself may ultimately be negative if you don't like what you see. It doesn't follow that self-knowledge will lead to enlightenment and self-improvement. And the barriers to true self- knowledge may be too great for most to breach. It might be that lack of self-knowledge is a key to the survival of the human species and is a good thing. Mankind didn't get where it is by seeking enlightenment, it got there by surviving and adapting to any environment without hesitating to think if it was the right thing to do. Mankind did this through superior intellect which led to advances in science and technology. Mankind didn't philosophize its way to the top of the food chain.
There is much to consider in your post, David. I appreciate the effort.
Where to begin?
All right, first off, the meliorism and morality in your post seem to me extrapolations. The maxim "Know Thyself" is not moralistic or melioristic on its face, not as I read it at any rate.
I mean, there are only two words in the injunction, after all. Self-knowledge seems to me an end in itself, not a means to an end.
Idealistic? Well, yes, perhaps, but in a good sense, it seems to me.
Too idealistic? Well, the maxim appeared in the first great flowering of civilization, not in hunter-gatherer tribal society. It strikes me as an ideal that follows and follows from accomplished basic survival.
Moreover, I don't share your reverence for survival as the goal of humanity. Enlightenment seems to me the goal. Thus, we are wont to be talking past each other here.
Finally, you conflate self-consciousness and self-knowledge. Self-consciousness is a necessary condition for self-knowledge, but not a sufficient condition (as is implied in your argument from survival).
