Individualism vs. Collectivism

[Nick_A]

What is a human being for? The essential question. We don't know...

Who is "we" and how do you know nobody else knows?

We refers to humanity asleep in Plato's cave attached to the shadows on the wall. Of course some have escaped the psychological prison of cave life. These are individuals having experienced objective human meaning and purpose and live in accordance with this knowledge. Since we don't know them, it is best for us to begin to "know thyself" to make freedom from the prison of cave life possible. But to "carry ones cross" is very difficult and only a few are capable of doing it.

[Immanuel Can]

Non-responsive.

"Particular." If not anything "particular," then there's no more to say.

You are a very confused person.

Ad hominem.

I've got it now: you're just somebody who likes to argue, and thinks a "win" is when you get the other person so bored and tired they quit.

Okay.

[Skepdick]

Ad hominem.

It's not ad hominem when it's true.

You conceded that your arguments have no true, real purpose.
The creator of the argument does not know the purpose of the argument.

What is that if not confusion?

I've got it now: you're just somebody who likes to argue, and thinks a "win" is when you get the other person so bored and tired they quit.

If you can't admit your error, then you quitting is good enough for me...

[Immanuel Can]

It's not ad hominem when it's true.

Yes, it is. True or not, you can't insult a person in order to dismiss an idea. It's irrational. Even a liar might, on this occasion, be telling the perfect truth.

If you can't admit your error, then you quitting is good enough for me...

If you had one, I'd be admitting it. But I'm content to let you have your "good enough." If you set the bar low enough, I guess you always get what you hope for.

[Skepdick]

Yes, it is. True or not, you can't insult a person in order to dismiss an idea. It's irrational. Even a liar might, on this occasion, be telling the perfect truth.

Except I am not dismissing any ideas. You are.

You are dismissing the idea that your very own arguments have no true, reason or purpose. Fine!

If the creator of the argument doesn't know its purpose, how am I supposed to guess it?

If you had one, I'd be admitting it. But I'm content to let you have your "good enough." If you set the bar low enough, I guess you always get what you hope for.

If it stupid and it works it isn't stupid...

[RCSaunders]

For the individual the purpose of society is to establish the means for creating human individuals.

Where did this idea come from. It certainly didn't come from Craig Biddle, who is a Randian Objectivist, and he certainly didn't get it from Ayn Rand.

It's not true in any case. Society has no purpose. A society is simply what it is, a collective term for all the individuals in a geographic area that interact in some way. The nature of any society is determined solely by the individuals that make up that society. As soon as one suggests a society has a purpose someone will begin to think about how make that society fulfill whatever that supposed purpose is.

But a society does not belong to anyone to make into the kind of society they would like, which is the fundamental fallacy in all of political philosophy.

[Nick_A]

For the individual the purpose of society is to establish the means for creating human individuals.

Where did this idea come from. It certainly come from Craig Biddle, who is a Randian Objectivist, and he certainly didn't get it from Ayn Rand.

It's not true in any case. Society has no purpose. A society is simply what it is, a collective term for all the individuals in a geographic area that interact in some way. The nature of any society is determined solely by the individuals that make up that society. As soon as one suggests a society has a purpose someone will begin to think about how make that society fulfill whatever that supposed purpose is.

But a society does not belong to anyone to make into the kind of society they would like, which is the fundamental fallacy in all of political philosophy.

Where Ayn Rand’s conception of individuality comes from bottom up reason, I’ve been lucky to learn of individuality through top down reason described by those like Plato and Simone Weil

The society you are describing is the Beast introduced by Plato and the Great Beast Simone wrote of. The philosophy I am referring to is not just an expression of the Great Beast appropriate for a particular time and place; it would be a society dedicated to help its citizens to awaken to individuality, to become themselves rather than just a conditioned atom of the Great Beast reacting in Plato’s cave

Metaxu is a valuable word rarely mentioned where secularism is dominant. It refers to the quality of culture that connects Man to his Source. It serves the purpose of awakening as opposed to the purpose of indoctrination practiced in the collective world referred to as Plato’s cave.

I will include this excerpt from “Gravity and Grace? For the sake of anyone who may resonate with the concept. It is important to remember that awakenng and indoctrination are mutually exclusive. The fact that so many are unaware of the the difference is proof of our collective ignorance. Society for the Great Beast is an end where society for metaxu is an intermediary; a quality between Man and God. Metaxu provides the incentive to achieve conscious rather than conditioned individuality.

https://fleurmach.com/2016/06/10/simone-weil-metaxu/

This world is the closed door. It is a barrier. And at the same time it is the way through.
Two prisoners whose cells adjoin communicate with each other by knocking on the wall. The wall is the thing which separates them but it is also their means of communication. It is the same with us and God. Every separation is a link………

The true individual has experienced metaxu impossible for the tyrant. They have experienced that though they are in the world they are not of it. The depth of their being is connected to something higher. This offers real freedom since freedom and individuality are not defined by society or the beast if you prefer, but by the connection metaxu reveals to us.

[RCSaunders]

What individualists and collectivists (the middle ground) have in common is a lot: they agree on the importance of human beings. They agree that there are serious problems. They agree about what many of those problems are. They agree that the right thing to do is to help people out of bad situations. They agree that compassion is very good, and that things could and should be better than they are.

You apparently don't know any individualists personally. I don't mean someone who claims to be an individualist. I mean someone who really is an individualist, one who seeks nothing in this world he has not produced or earned by his own effort, who does not need or require the agreement or approval of any other human being, who would never harm another human being and enjoys his relationship with all those for whom the relationship is mutually beneficial, never judging how other's choose to live their lives, taking for responsibility for his ow choices and actions, gladly bearing the penalty for his wrong choices and proudly enjoying the fruits of his right one, fully confident in his competence to live his life successfully and happily, which he regards as the purpose of his life.

If you knew a true individualists like that, you would know they do not regard any human being important just because they exist or that anythig is "just important." Importance implies some value or purpose toward which something is crucial. Most human beings have very little positive importance to anything, and many are only important in the negative (criminals, drug addicts, and social parasites).

You would know that an individualist does no look at life as a series of problems to be solved, but as an endless potential of objectives to be achieved. There are only problems if something interferes with the achievement of an objective. Almost all of what are called "problems," in the world are the consequences of individuals' bad choices. An individualist regards all his own problems his own fault, and everyone else's problems their own fault and feels no obligation to help others out of the jams and difficulties they have gotten themselves into, even life-threatening ones.

An individualist would never agree that compassion is good, or that it, and it's sister ideas of sympathy, empathy, commiseration, and pity, for example are anything more than appeals to sentmentalism. Notice that all these words mean, "to feel with," which assumes that a feeling is a basis for a choice. Also notice it is always the feelings of those that are human failures and their grief, sadness, misfortune and despair. It is never the whole, the healthy, or successful one is supposed feel with. The reason an individualist does not regard anyone's feeling as a basis for any choice is because he does not regard his own feelings as a basis of any choice or an excuse for doing anything. Why should he worry about anyone else's feeling, he doesn't worry about his own, or want anyone else to, either.

Now the odd thing is, an individualist does not identify himself as an individualist, because he does not regard individualism as an ideology but simply what any individual who chooses to be fully human is.

[RCSaunders]

For the individual the purpose of society is to establish the means for creating human individuals.

Where did this idea come from. It certainly come from Craig Biddle, who is a Randian Objectivist, and he certainly didn't get it from Ayn Rand.

It's not true in any case. Society has no purpose. A society is simply what it is, a collective term for all the individuals in a geographic area that interact in some way. The nature of any society is determined solely by the individuals that make up that society. As soon as one suggests a society has a purpose someone will begin to think about how make that society fulfill whatever that supposed purpose is.

But a society does not belong to anyone to make into the kind of society they would like, which is the fundamental fallacy in all of political philosophy.

Where Ayn Rand’s conception of individuality comes from bottom up reason, I’ve been lucky to learn of individuality through top down reason described by those like Plato and Simone Weil

First of all I corrected the sentence, "It certainly come from Craig Biddle, who ..." to "It certainly did not come from Craig Biddle, who ..." which was intended

Secondly, you really have no idea what an individualist is. An individualist does not come,"from bottom up reason." It is what one is who has never been taken in by all the collectivist and altruistic ideas promoted by mystics, philosophers, and academics. It is what every human being is before their mind is warped by their teachers.

The society you are describing is the Beast introduced by Plato and the Great Beast Simone wrote of.

Society is exactly what I described, just a collective term for all the individuals living and interacting in more or less close proximity. It is not an organism or entity. Like everything else, the value of society is only whatever value it is to any individual. There is no collective or social value.

The rest of what you wrote I regard as mystic nonsense. One thing a true individualist never does is base any of his beliefs or reasoning on the teachings of others.

[Nick_A]

Where did this idea come from. It certainly come from Craig Biddle, who is a Randian Objectivist, and he certainly didn't get it from Ayn Rand.

It's not true in any case. Society has no purpose. A society is simply what it is, a collective term for all the individuals in a geographic area that interact in some way. The nature of any society is determined solely by the individuals that make up that society. As soon as one suggests a society has a purpose someone will begin to think about how make that society fulfill whatever that supposed purpose is.

But a society does not belong to anyone to make into the kind of society they would like, which is the fundamental fallacy in all of political philosophy.

Where Ayn Rand’s conception of individuality comes from bottom up reason, I’ve been lucky to learn of individuality through top down reason described by those like Plato and Simone Weil

First of all I corrected the sentence, "It certainly come from Craig Biddle, who ..." to "It certainly did not come from Craig Biddle, who ..." which was intended

Secondly, you really have no idea what an individualist is. An individualist does not come,"from bottom up reason." It is what one is who has never been taken in by all the collectivist and altruistic ideas promoted by mystics, philosophers, and academics. It is what every human being is before their mind is warped by their teachers.

The society you are describing is the Beast introduced by Plato and the Great Beast Simone wrote of.

Society is exactly what I described, just a collective term for all the individuals living and interacting in more or less close proximity. It is not an organism or entity. Like everything else, the value of society is only whatever value it is to any individual. There is no collective or social value.

The rest of what you wrote I regard as mystic nonsense. One thing a true individualist never does is base any of his beliefs or reasoning on the teachings of others.

A conscious individual as opposed to an indoctrinated individual cannot rationalize being asleep in Plato's cave. The indoctrinated individual does this. You will call the awareness of the human condition described by Plato and the opportunity with help from above to become a conscious individual mystical nonsense. Secularism which by definition must deny help from above must agree with you and this mindset is becoming increasingly dominant. I learn from those whose need for meaning transcends what the goods of world and the contradictory emotions they inspire can provide.

A person should never blindly believe the teachings of others like Plato. person must verify these idea by making the efforts to know thyself; to have the experience of oneself. But if a person is never exposed to awakening ideas or just blindly rejects them to protect their opinions of themselves, then they can never experience the value of the essence of religion or non secular philosophy. They will call imaginary self justification being an individual. It has become the norm.

[Immanuel Can]

What individualists and collectivists (the middle ground) have in common is a lot: they agree on the importance of human beings. They agree that there are serious problems. They agree about what many of those problems are. They agree that the right thing to do is to help people out of bad situations. They agree that compassion is very good, and that things could and should be better than they are.

You apparently don't know any individualists personally. I don't mean someone who claims to be an individualist. I mean someone who really is an individualist, one who seeks nothing in this world he has not produced or earned by his own effort, who does not need or require the agreement or approval of any other human being, who would never harm another human being and enjoys his relationship with all those for whom the relationship is mutually beneficial, never judging how other's choose to live their lives, taking for responsibility for his ow choices and actions, gladly bearing the penalty for his wrong choices and proudly enjoying the fruits of his right one, fully confident in his competence to live his life successfully and happily, which he regards as the purpose of his life.

That, by definition, is not merely an individualist (the broad category, including all who focus on the individual as solution) but an egoist. Or, on the more negative side, we might even say a hermit, a solipsist, or maybe a sociopath.

I wouldn't advocate any of those things, but individualism doesn't need to go that far. The difference between the individualist and the collectivist is merely whether they look to the strengthening of the individual or of the power of the collective. This does not need to be absolute, on either side; and in most cases, it's not. A collectivist may reserve some function for the individual, but see his role as lesser or within the collective; an individualist may recognize a role for society, nation or other collectives, but regard the maximizing of individual freedoms as a prerequisite for the collective.

Let's not go crazy here.

If you knew a true individualists like that,...

Well, I'll warrant that you don't know any either. You may know somebody who TALKS that way, but he doesn't live in total independence of others. Nobody actually lives that way. Anybody who says he does, but lives in any civilization at all, is simply not aware of how much he relies on others.

It's a brave idea to think that the individual doesn't need partners, the family, society, nation or other forms of collective: but it's simply not true. We are social creatures; and we do not live happy and fulfilled lives by looking solely to our own interests. In fact, if we really did that in all things, we wouldn't live very long at all -- our lives would be Hobbesian: "nasty, brutish and short."

[Nick_A]

I C

Well, I'll warrant that you don't know any either. You may know somebody who TALKS that way, but he doesn't live in total independence of others. Nobody actually lives that way. Anybody who says he does, but lives in any civilization at all, is simply not aware of how much he relies on others.

It's a brave idea to think that the individual doesn't need partners, the family, society, nation or other forms of collective: but it's simply not true. We are social creatures; and we do not live happy and fulfilled lives by looking solely to our own interests. In fact, if we really did that in all things, we wouldn't live very long at all -- our lives would be Hobbesian: "nasty, brutish and short."

Jesus was a true individual which is why he had to be killed. He not only could do anything but knew what to do. He wasn't a prisoner of Plato's cave. He understood his objective purpose in the context of the fallen human condition and was able to attain it regardless of intense intolerance leading to the crucifixion.

Jesus had to provide the alternative to the grand collective - the Great Beast and its blind obedience to worldly influences depriving Man of its conscious potential.. His individuality defeated death for humanity

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus was a true individual...

In regard to having personal dependencies, yes. In regard to seeking approval from authorities, yes.

But for his disciples, his directions were often communitarian, not merely individualistic. The desert ascetics of the early centuries got that idea wrong. The point was not to "get out of" the world and become a hermit, the absolute individualist, but rather to function graciously in the context of society, being "in the world, but not of it." Individualism was limited to the idea of moral self-control; but interdependence, not independence, was the practice of the apostles and the early church.

[RCSaunders]

If you knew a true individualists like that,...

Well, I'll warrant that you don't know any either. You may know somebody who TALKS that way, but he doesn't live in total independence of others. Nobody actually lives that way. Anybody who says he does, but lives in any civilization at all, is simply not aware of how much he relies on others.

It's a brave idea to think that the individual doesn't need partners, the family, society, nation or other forms of collective: but it's simply not true. We are social creatures; and we do not live happy and fulfilled lives by looking solely to our own interests. In fact, if we really did that in all things, we wouldn't live very long at all -- our lives would be Hobbesian: "nasty, brutish and short."

No individualist chooses or desires to live independently of others, if independent means separate from and having no relationships with others. Individualists, above all others, are capable of appreciating the society of other human beings and participating in those kinds of social interactions which benefit all parties involved. The happiest families, the most successful communities, and healthiest economies are those that are comprised mostly of self-sufficient, self-motivated, independent, productive individuals pursuing their own ends, which happens to benefit all others who interact with them, but is motivated solely by the individualist's choice to be the best he can be in all things.

You say you have never met such an individual, and I do not doubt it. (Perhaps you travel in the wrong circles.) As a percentage of human beings, there are very few individualists, and less today than ever before, but I can assure you, I have known many. The one thing that is almost universal among them is they never claim to be individulists (or any other kind of, "-ists).

The individualist will sometimes used the term, "collectivism," which is what he regards any view that subordinates individuals to anything other than their own life and their pursuit of it. It is not used as a pejorative or insult the way others use individualism. It is only the identification of a point of view the individualist regards as mistaken and self-destructive for those who hold it. The only time individualists regard collectivism as a true danger or evil is when it is institutionalized as a government policy as in all socialistic and communist societies.

It has always seemed odd to me that no matter how much one disagrees with the view that every individual's own life and enjoyment of it is the purpose of his life, and that he is the only one responsible for that life or has the authority to determine how it is lived, and his success or failure is entirely determined by his own choices and actions, and that everything in one's life must be achieved and earned by one's own effort is so hated.

Individualism cannot possibly be a threat to anyone else, because it makes no demands on anyone else and refuses for anyone else to make a demand on them. If it were possible (it isn't) for there to be a society where every citizen were an individualist, there would be no crime, no threat to anyone by anyone else, and every individual would be free to achieve and be whatever he chose to be within the limits of physical possibility. While there is, and always will be governments forcing individuals to comply with collectivist views, there will never be a government that forces individuals to comply with individualistic views. Individualism must be freely chosen by those who see its virtue, only collectivism gets shoved down people's throats against their will.

[Immanuel Can]

No individualist chooses or desires to live independently of others...

Then we don't disagree about what one is. But we have to keep the definition modest enough not to be making absurd or extravagant claims for the possibility of "being one's own man."

Individualism vs. Collectivism is on a grey scale, not a dichotomy.