You are right, that Narcissus loves himself, but he is beset with the confusion You referred to in the young man talking to Socrates, just before his trial. However, this confusion is different in kind, (Narcissus’s rather than in the Double (Dostoevski) , because it is a confusion over a complex, undifferentiated state of the brain matter, it’s idealism is perforated by the nagging doubt, primarily not over imperfection of an imminent state, but a transcendental doubt arising from this very split between Narcissus’ lack of acknowledgement of a difference between the reflection qua projection of the image of himself, from that of different from himself.
The primary reflection is pre-verbal, it cannot be akin to the Double, because, here, the difference is defined as two. Narcissus’ has no luxury for transcendence, the reflection is all he has to secure his place, not as as an evolved ideal or it’s re-presentation.but literally having no idea, of what the ideal is, because he only sees himself. There is no ideal in this world, and this is why, tragedy has to wear a mask, the ideal has no role other than a presentation of the self, as the other. Narcissus does not know it is himself, and that is implicit in the question mark placed by You, after describing his affect.
At such a state of undifferentiated knowledge, identity is protected, and the ideas springing up, such as ‘is this me, or is this the other’ have no basis yet for understanding. The i and the other must be simply a non pre occupation, and the question of reflection it’s self is a non sequitur. This is not at all the Socratic confusion You talk about, this is our confusion about Narcissus.
He must resolve it, and it is our tragedy, not his that he is not as yet capable. For him , there is no expression of tragedy, it only occurs when he has to remove his mask, but a mask he cannot remove, because he doesn’t even know what that mask is.
Joseph Campbell wrote of a thousand masks, in this regard, and his archetypical descriptions consist of the pre lingual representations which made the Hero’s journey one, where, even in this state, he can over come this lack of differentiation between the symbol and it’s object, the designate and the designator, the sign and the symbol. This overcoming extends, through to modern thought to Nietzsche, and then with Deleuze it becomes the tragedy of the pain of this regression unto the field of immanence, a transposition of the transcendental ego on a field of immanence.This is what is tragic, and the only exit from this state is masochism, and a sadism against the self, an aesthetic of cruelty , a fleur de mal.Pleasure through pain, the pain of, and You rightly suggest likewise, of never being able to realize the ideal, only through another super imposition, and that is of what the double comes up with, Reality. This reality if not again transposed, will result in total subject-object fracture, and hence it’s sustenance is a necessary defensive posture at this level. The identity HAS to confirm within the cave of bonding with aspects of the self, which adhere to changes within the cave. The discernment of changes are approximate to variable lighting, aesthetic distance to the object. The identity is dependent on these variables. The identity as it’s own ideal, if not realized at some point, with the object, the objective-purpose as ‘projected’ as a defense, will no longer be able to negotiate with the designated symbols.
This underlies the compulsion implicit between the pleasure-pain and it’s double, reality. Reality bites, reality cuts up the original continuum, into non sequential bits, existentially reduced, and suspended into non negotiable relationships between reality and the fantasy world of the ideal.
Oh sure , that these internal cut up transactions do not adhere to aesthetic rules, is obvious, and can be exercised indiscriminately, however, such lack of discernment must result in underlying insecurity .This insecurity perhaps, was , which was what sent Socrates to his death.