Only Individuals Matter

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:55 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:18 pm Why is this true? I have my own ideas and it has to do with choice, but I'll await your comments.
It's not entirely pathological.

*We are, after all, social creatures. That's a cliche, but it's not less true for that. When we are born, we are, for many years, dependent on others just to survive. We live in communities. We form families. Needing other people isn't automatically a sign of weakness or conformity.

**Independence is a learned skill. It's not easy to be autonomous, or individualist, or even self-controlled; and it's not a trick that even the best of us manages all of the time. It's a challenge many people are not up to at all, in fact. They are, to borrow a phrase, "other-directed," because it's a much easier way to live, and also, in some cases is actually unavoidable. If one wants to live in a civilization, or to experience the benefits of divisions of labour and specialization, then it's going to be, to some extent, necessary.

***I don't have an issue with people choosing to form collectives, if they want to do so voluntarily. I do have an issue with them forcing others to do so, whether they want to or not, and with them indoctrinating children to be incapable of self-determination, or training them to subordinate their autonomy to a "collective good" that is really no more than to render them more useful to some collective or the arbitrary dictates of some Socialist or autocrat.

It's ideological collectivism that is toxic. Voluntary collectives...hey, whatever you want. Elective societies...great. Common projects?...good idea. But just don't try to force any of that on anybody capable and desirous of standing on his own feet. Those things have to be chosen, not compelled.
*Yes, but cooperation is meant to further singular ambition, not supplant it. You and me go huntin'...we're stalkin' something fast, tough, and delicious...we work together to better our chances of fillin' our individual bellies, not in service to some society that extends out of, and is superior to us. Of course, I want you to fill your belly too (cuz I value you for multiple reasons) but -- first and foremost -- I wanna eat, to live, to stay alive.

But, that simple, practical reason for cooperation has been from twisted from sometimes a good idea and sometimes a decent strategy into necessity and obligation.

**I disagree. I think the drive to self-direct is strong. It must be tempered, of course, mated properly with self-responsbilty, to avoid license or licentiousness, but the drive itself is wholly natural to us.

***Me, I'm fine with folks livin' voluntarily as they choose; got a rather large problem with folks bein' reigned in: it rankles to see others leashed, and, leashed folks can be damned effective when forced to go after unleashed folks.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 11:45 pm *Yes, but cooperation is meant to further singular ambition, not supplant it. You and me go huntin'...we're stalkin' something fast, tough, and delicious...we work together to better our chances of fillin' our individual bellies, not in service to some society that extends out of, and is superior to us. Of course, I want you to fill your belly too (cuz I value you for multiple reasons) but -- first and foremost -- I wanna eat, to live, to stay alive.
Well, that's important to remember, for sure. There's no value in cooperating if the collective lets the individual go to Hell in a handcart. It's ultimately for the individual that the cooperating is done.
Me, I'm fine with folks livin' voluntarily as they choose; got a rather large problem with folks bein' reigned in: it rankles to see others leashed, and, leashed folks can be damned effective when forced to go after unleashed folks.
Yeah, that's for sure. And that's what's particularly dangerous about ideological Socialism; it musters the weak-minded, foolish collectivists in mob rule against the individualists. At least, that's what it's done every time so far in history.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by DPMartin »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 6:10 pm I recently wrote:

"In the entire history of the world every advance in civilization, every gain in knowledge, and every improvement in the human condition has come solely through the efforts of independent individuals. They and they alone are the creators, innovators, and discoverers of the world. These men are all there is of positive importance in all of history; all the rest, the tyrants, the dictators, the famines and plagues, earthquakes, floods, the mass of ignorant and superstitious humanity, the crimes and the wars were important only in the negative."
it could be said that way, thing is no one does such things without the support of the like minded. alexander the great changed the world, but not without the armies that followed him, hence like minded. hitler did what he did but not without the like minded. even guys like Einstein he couldn't have done what he did without the supportive community of scientist and mathematicians in place for him to do so. and the world leadership to responded to his advice such as to pres. Roosevelt.

so individuals get credit for, because its in the name of, but it takes the like minded to get there. hence a group in agreement with.

also one should keep in mind that the winners write the history.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by mickthinks »

mickthinks wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:01 pm Only Atoms Matter

Only atoms: that's all there is, was, or ever will be: atoms, combining with, competing against, attracting, repelling, other atoms.

There are no material links between and among atoms; there are only forces, attractions, and bondings, the best of which are covalent, the worst, of course, ionic.

Molecules are a progressive delusion.
Organic molecules are socialist!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by Immanuel Can »

mickthinks wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:52 pm Organic molecules are socialist!
Molecules are not individuals (noun: i.e. "persons," not adj.).

Your analogy requires us to suppose that individual people are just "molecules," and the living entity is "society." The opposite is true: the individuals are the persons; "society" is merely a collective abstraction.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by mickthinks »

mickthinks wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:52 pm
mickthinks wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:01 pm Only Atoms Matter

Only atoms: that's all there is, was, or ever will be: atoms, combining with, competing against, attracting, repelling, other atoms.

There are no material links between and among atoms; there are only forces, attractions, and bondings, the best of which are covalent, the worst, of course, ionic.

Molecules are a progressive delusion.
Organic molecules are socialist!
The DNA double-helix is an un-American communist plot!
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by henry quirk »

mickthinks wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 6:50 pm
mickthinks wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:52 pm
mickthinks wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:01 pm Only Atoms Matter

Only atoms: that's all there is, was, or ever will be: atoms, combining with, competing against, attracting, repelling, other atoms.

There are no material links between and among atoms; there are only forces, attractions, and bondings, the best of which are covalent, the worst, of course, ionic.

Molecules are a progressive delusion.
Organic molecules are socialist!
The DNA double-helix is an un-American communist plot!
You remind me of a fella named Flint over in the Cellar Boardhost forum.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by mickthinks »

Flint sounds like a splendid fellow!
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by henry quirk »

mickthinks wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 10:56 am Flint sounds like a splendid fellow!
He's not.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by mickthinks »

Mick: You have not even named any of these "creatives". I'm wondering why that is ...
RC: To protect them from the kind abuse idiots who have never had an original idea in their entire lives like to direct at true creators.

Really? I have never heard of a creative innovator who wanted to remain anonymous and avoid public recognition. Most of them seem to relish at least some fame and admiration; Gates, Jobs, Musk, Hendrix, Madonna, Davis, Picasso, Rodin, Monet, Beethoven, Mozart, Michelangelo, Galileo ...
User avatar
Hermit Philosopher
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: By the seaside
Contact:

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by Hermit Philosopher »

I find it somewhat strange that from what you write in OP, your conclusion is that “only individuals matter”.

To me, what is interesting about what you have said, is that it illustrates that what does not make it into recorded history (most things, basically), has little impact on our way of seeing things.


Humbly
Hermit
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by RCSaunders »

Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 12:26 pm I find it somewhat strange that from what you write in OP, your conclusion is that “only individuals matter”.
The title was, as a good title ought to be, the, "hook," to stimulate interest, not a statement. In the very first paragraph I explained that what is meant, that only individuals mattered as positive contributors to human life and history:
These men are all there is of positive importance in all of history; all the rest, the tyrants, the dictators, the famines and plagues, earthquakes, floods, the mass of ignorant and superstitious humanity, the crimes and the wars were important only in the negative."
Hermit Philosopher wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 12:26 pm To me, what is interesting about what you have said, is that it illustrates that what does not make it into recorded history (most things, basically), has little impact on our way of seeing things.
It is interesting, but obviously, recording every insignificant event that had no lasting impact on anything would be a waste of time. The history that exists is almost infinite in scope; so huge, no individual could ever read all that's already been recorded.

I doubt very much if anything missed in recorded history, if known, would make a particle of difference on any present knowledge or way of seeing things. It is quite obvious, very little is learned from history by most of mankind, since they keep repeating the same stupid mistakes over and over.

Thanks for the comment.
User avatar
Hermit Philosopher
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: By the seaside
Contact:

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by Hermit Philosopher »

In case you were not intentionally ignoring the point I attempted to get across with my comment:

It is problematic to say that only the “irrelevant” does not make it into recorded history, because what makes it into recorded history does not depend on its relevance, as much as on who is recording history at the time.

I believe this to be important enough to emphasise when someone does not take it into consideration when writing.


Humbly
Hermit
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by RCSaunders »

Hermit Philosopher wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 11:54 am In case you were not intentionally ignoring the point I attempted to get across with my comment:

It is problematic to say that only the “irrelevant” does not make it into recorded history, because what makes it into recorded history does not depend on its relevance, as much as on who is recording history at the time.

I believe this to be important enough to emphasise when someone does not take it into consideration when writing.

Humbly
Hermit
I thought I understood and addressed you point. I did not intentionally evade it.

Perhaps I don't understand what you are getting at. What, exactly is it you think is "problematic." What do you mean by, "what makes it into recorded history does not depend on its relevance? Relevance to what?

I'm also not sure what you mean by, "someone does not take it into consideration." Who is the, "someone," you refer to, and what is the, "it," you think is being neglected?

I would sincerely like to address your concerns as soon as I understand what they are. You may be right, but I'm afraid I don't understand exactly what your point is.
User avatar
Hermit Philosopher
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: By the seaside
Contact:

Re: Only Individuals Matter

Post by Hermit Philosopher »

Or perhaps I misread you... let’s explore, shall we?

What I find problematic is the claim that things make it into recorded history because they are important, when really, things become historically important because they are (chosen to be) included in recorded history. Do you see the difference...?

The former suggests that what did not make it into recorded history was never important, whiles the latter acknowledges that those in control of the production of information at a particular time - that which becomes recorded history - choose what is of relevance to them at that time.

In reminding one’s readers that things become historically relevant because they were included in recorded history and not vice versa, one is highlighting that our record of history is not a question of truth, but of perspective: it is shows us a version of many different - equally true - pasts.

Doing this, is not only a matter of good ethical writing; as values in society change, it allows us to reevaluate the historical relevance of a narrative.

Does that make sense?


Humbly
Hermit
Post Reply