Individualism vs. Collectivism

[Nick_A]

The essential question of philosophy. How can we transcend the domain of opinions and partial truths so as to experience the whole truth. Plato said we must remember them. But to discuss this idea honestly in secular society is too disturbing and causes trouble.

The reason it "causes trouble" is because "the essential question" is unanswerable. Which in simple language means: no subject can transcend their subjectivity to arrive at objectivity.

We all aspire towards Platonism - we all fail at it.

Quite true. Math reveals the partial truths of logical relationships. It cannot reveal their objective value.

Seeming as "objectivity" is a subjective construct, and "values" are inherently subjective it seems to me that "objective values" are a double oxymoron..

This is another one of these ideas offensive to secularism which are too offensive to explore so better avoided where secularism is dominant.

From where I am looking (the skeptic-agnostic chair) both secularism and theism are two sides of the same coin. Dogmatism.

The entire game of "having beliefs" is dogmatism - so I've given all of mine up. So I've traded in all my "beliefs" in exchange for methods which are instrumental to my goals.

Here is where we disagree. I believe there is a universal scale of objective value which holds true even if man on earth no longer exists. It can be remembered when objective conscience is sufficiently developed. If true the question becomes how to remember.

Can there be a method for remembrance which corresponds to your goals greater than pragmatism? I believe so and also know why its basis in reality must be rejected by worldly secularism only concerned with transient pragmatism.

Do you recognize the potential for a perennial philosophy? If you do, can our species as a collective consciously evolve so as to understand it and express it or is it doomed to an eternal debate over opinions with only a small minority of individuals consciously growing to experience it?

The Perennial philosophy (Latin: philosophia perennis), also referred to as perennialism and perennial wisdom, is a perspective in spirituality that views all of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.

[Skepdick]

Here is where we disagree. I believe there is a universal scale of objective value which holds true even if man on earth no longer exists. It can be remembered when objective conscience is sufficiently developed. If true the question becomes how to remember.

Here is why I think you are delusional.

How does a man determine that the values they hold (remember?) at any given moment aren't the "objective values" you are claiming exist?
How does a man determine that their "objective conscience" is (or is not) sufficiently developed at any given point?

At this very point, I could claim transcendence and private access to said "objective values". But that would make me no different to any religious zealot.

Can there be a method for remembrance which corresponds to your goals greater than pragmatism?

How would you measure/determine this (or any particular) method's "greatness"?

In as far as your pursuit is focused on seeking methods, I don't think you've explored the limits of methodism.

I believe so and also know why its basis in reality must be rejected by worldly secularism only concerned with transient pragmatism.

Obviously you believe it. But it's your subjective (never to become objective) belief.

Objectivism is dogma.

Do you recognize the potential for a perennial philosophy? If you do, can our species as a collective consciously evolve so as to understand it and express it or is it doomed to an eternal debate over opinions with only a small minority of individuals consciously growing to experience it?

I agree with perennial philosophy, but having traveled the journey to agree with it - I find some philosophy (the analytic school) harmful in this pursuit, not helpful. While I have the knack for analyticity, I side with the continental school.

What we share in common is the human condition - and within it we have shared values, goals and desires. And we can't transcend that, so we must work with what we have. And in so far as the human condition is deeply subjective, yet you focus on objectivism I don't think you are preaching perennialism.

The old adage rings true - you can't legislate (read: express in language) morality - our deepest values and understanding of "right" and "wrong". The Platonic idealists forever pursues justice, but what we (as humans) have constructed/invented is not a justice system - it is merely a legal system.

Often the very legal system that becomes the source of injustice.

[Nick_A]

Skepdick

How does a man determine that the values they hold (remember?) at any given moment aren't the "objective values" you are claiming exist?
How does a man determine that their "objective conscience" is (or is not) sufficiently developed at any given point?

At this very point, I could claim transcendence and private access to said "objective values". But that would make me no different to any religious zealot.

For what it’s worth I appreciate that you avoid going into an emotional frenzy during a discussion like this. Anyhow, I’m claiming that the human condition makes us unable to act in accordance with the objective values we may preach.

I could assert for example that respect for life or universal love are objective values which permeate our universe. A person may come to agree that it is logical but finds they are incapable of it so though we may agree with an objective value, we react in accordance with subjective conditioned values. Do you agree?

How would you measure/determine this (or any particular) method's "greatness"?

In as far as your pursuit is focused on seeking methods, I don't think you've explored the limits of methodism.

As an aside, your thread on Methodism may have earned the wrath of gods since it no longer exists

Can we agree that the first step in a method presuming one does exist is to admit like Socrates did that “I know nothing?” This raises the question what it is about human being which prevents us from understanding and invites hypocrisy? Can a person verify the human condition or what we are which must lead to hypocrisy for those having the need for universal truth rather than egoistic dominance.

I agree with perennial philosophy, but having traveled the journey to agree with it - I find some philosophy (the analytic school) harmful in this pursuit, not helpful. While I have the knack for analyticity, I side with the continental school.

I am the same. I admire those with a scientific mind who appreciate the horizontal laws of science (facts) and can place them within the vertical laws of being which are far more than dualistic analysis creating the quality of a moment: the unification of facts and values

What we share in common is the human condition - and within it we have shared values, goals and desires. And we can't transcend that, so we must work with what we have. And in so far as the human condition is deeply subjective, yet you focus on objectivism I don't think you are preaching perennialism.

But suppose there are ways to transcend what we are that people especially in secular societies deny because they threaten the security of our psychological sleep, would you be willing to discuss one in particular without resorting to the condemnation that normally takes place? Notice I don’t say agree with but rather just be open to discuss what is possible and what can be verified to help the human condition?

The old adage rings true - you can't legislate (read: express in language) morality - our deepest values and understanding of "right" and "wrong". The Platonic idealists forever pursues justice, but what we (as humans) have constructed/invented is not a justice system - it is merely a legal system.

Often the very legal system that becomes the source of injustice.

I agree. Lacking conscious understanding invariably leads to the devolution of objective knowledge into the subjective struggle for prestige acquired through the creation of dominant opinions. Justice is a prime example.

[Nick_A]

“Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion — and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion… while truth again reverts to a new minority.” Soren Kierkegaard

The strength of the majority is illusory. Of course it doesn't know it which is why it condemns the perception of the authentic individual.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The fears that guide us, can know no bounds.

You are obviously suffering from a sever case of paranoia. What are you afraid of?

I forgot to mention that the reason you used the term paranoid was to try and distance yourself from fear, as you fear it and being known as one that does. Typical denial, an attempt to bolster self image/projection.

[RCSaunders]

I forgot to mention that the reason you used the term paranoid was to try and distance yourself from fear, as you fear it and being known as one that does. Typical denial, an attempt to bolster self image/projection.

Oh, well, thanks. That's a great comfort,

probably.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I forgot to mention that the reason you used the term paranoid was to try and distance yourself from fear, as you fear it and being known as one that does. Typical denial, an attempt to bolster self image/projection.

Oh, well, thanks. That's a great comfort,

probably.

Well look at the world right now! Then again look at human history. All the warring, the stone age, copper, bronze, iron, steel, black powder, nuclear. Imperialism, Colonialism, etc! ALL based on the fear of death. And that's exactly where all that fear is taking us, to our own idiotic self annihilation. It's a human sickness, a game that the most fearful, our so called leaders, play, dragging us along with them by pacifying us with illusory ease through consumerism and materialism! Nothing that humanity has done has eased the disease, instead only intensifying it. How about mushroom clouds? Which is why I say that humans are the dumbest animals on the plant. The cups volume is finite, and we shall eventually cause it to overflow!

Fear, the mind killer!

[RCSaunders]

Well look at the world right now! Then again look at human history. All the warring, the stone age, copper, bronze, iron, steel, black powder, nuclear. Imperialism, Colonialism, etc! ALL based on the fear of death. And that's exactly where all that fear is taking us, to our own idiotic self annihilation. It's a human sickness, a game that the most fearful, our so called leaders, play, dragging us along with them by pacifying us with illusory ease through consumerism and materialism! Nothing that humanity has done has eased the disease, instead only intensifying it. How about mushroom clouds? Which is why I say that humans are the dumbest animals on the plant. The cups volume is finite, and we shall eventually cause it to overflow!

Fear, the mind killer!

What is your point. Do you think I do not know the kind of horrors mankind has perpetrated? Is there something you want to do about it? To go through life fearing what cannot be changed is a kind of disease. If the worst happens, you'll be dead, and it won't matter to you anymore. In reality, it is very unlikely that any of those things you are afraid of are going to happen to you.

I never worry. There are only two kinds of things in this world people worry about: those things they can do something about, and those things they cannot do anything about. To worry about what you can do something about is your own fault. If you can do something about it, do it, and you won't have to worry about it any more. To worry about what you cannot do anything about is just stupid. Just learn how to deal with what you cannot change and spend your time and effort doing the things you can, and enjoy your life.

You are not going to change the world, or save mankind, or cure the masses of their ignorance and gullibility. There is nothing you can do to change others, and other's lives are not yours to change anyway, and it would be immoral to change them if you could. There is one life you can change and make it anything you choose, your own. Make the most your own life and be all you can be and you will soon stop worrying about what others do and how they live and you will be much happier.

Doesn't that make sense to you?

[Nick_A]

Well look at the world right now! Then again look at human history. All the warring, the stone age, copper, bronze, iron, steel, black powder, nuclear. Imperialism, Colonialism, etc! ALL based on the fear of death. And that's exactly where all that fear is taking us, to our own idiotic self annihilation. It's a human sickness, a game that the most fearful, our so called leaders, play, dragging us along with them by pacifying us with illusory ease through consumerism and materialism! Nothing that humanity has done has eased the disease, instead only intensifying it. How about mushroom clouds? Which is why I say that humans are the dumbest animals on the plant. The cups volume is finite, and we shall eventually cause it to overflow!

Fear, the mind killer!

What is your point. Do you think I do not know the kind of horrors mankind has perpetrated? Is there something you want to do about it? To go through life fearing what cannot be changed is a kind of disease. If the worst happens, you'll be dead, and it won't matter to you anymore. In reality, it is very unlikely that any of those things you are afraid of are going to happen to you.

I never worry. There are only two kinds of things in this world people worry about: those things they can do something about, and those things they cannot do anything about. To worry about what you can do something about is your own fault. If you can do something about it, do it, and you won't have to worry about it any more. To worry about what you cannot do anything about is just stupid. Just learn how to deal with what you cannot change and spend your time and effort doing the things you can, and enjoy your life.

You are not going to change the world, or save mankind, or cure the masses of their ignorance and gullibility. There is nothing you can do to change others, and other's lives are not yours to change anyway, and it would be immoral to change them if you could. There is one life you can change and make it anything you choose, your own. Make the most your own life and be all you can be and you will soon stop worrying about what others do and how they live and you will be much happier.

Doesn't that make sense to you?

What makes sense to me is that you neither know the why of Christianity nor its reason for existence, So the idea of the difference between the the purpose of the collective and its effect on the individual and what the individual is capble of makes no sense to you either. It is why it has become meaningless in the secular world and open to be destroyed for something you an IC consider sensible. It is the frightening norm of the world which only a relative few are consciously willing to recognize the difference.

The proof is reading the title of the thread and what has taken place within it.

[RCSaunders]

Well look at the world right now! Then again look at human history. All the warring, the stone age, copper, bronze, iron, steel, black powder, nuclear. Imperialism, Colonialism, etc! ALL based on the fear of death. And that's exactly where all that fear is taking us, to our own idiotic self annihilation. It's a human sickness, a game that the most fearful, our so called leaders, play, dragging us along with them by pacifying us with illusory ease through consumerism and materialism! Nothing that humanity has done has eased the disease, instead only intensifying it. How about mushroom clouds? Which is why I say that humans are the dumbest animals on the plant. The cups volume is finite, and we shall eventually cause it to overflow!

Fear, the mind killer!

What is your point. Do you think I do not know the kind of horrors mankind has perpetrated? Is there something you want to do about it? To go through life fearing what cannot be changed is a kind of disease. If the worst happens, you'll be dead, and it won't matter to you anymore. In reality, it is very unlikely that any of those things you are afraid of are going to happen to you.

I never worry. There are only two kinds of things in this world people worry about: those things they can do something about, and those things they cannot do anything about. To worry about what you can do something about is your own fault. If you can do something about it, do it, and you won't have to worry about it any more. To worry about what you cannot do anything about is just stupid. Just learn how to deal with what you cannot change and spend your time and effort doing the things you can, and enjoy your life.

You are not going to change the world, or save mankind, or cure the masses of their ignorance and gullibility. There is nothing you can do to change others, and other's lives are not yours to change anyway, and it would be immoral to change them if you could. There is one life you can change and make it anything you choose, your own. Make the most your own life and be all you can be and you will soon stop worrying about what others do and how they live and you will be much happier.

Doesn't that make sense to you?

What makes sense to me is that you neither know the why of Christianity nor its reason for existence, So the idea of the difference between the the purpose of the collective and its effect on the individual and what the individual is capble of makes no sense to you either. It is why it has become meaningless in the secular world and open to be destroyed for something you an IC consider sensible. It is the frightening norm of the world which only a relative few are consciously willing to recognize the difference.

The proof is reading the title of the thread and what has taken place within it.

I cannot possibly disagree with you, because I honestly have no idea what you wrote means. Don't worry about it. I'll take the blame for not being able to understand.

[Nick_A]

What is your point. Do you think I do not know the kind of horrors mankind has perpetrated? Is there something you want to do about it? To go through life fearing what cannot be changed is a kind of disease. If the worst happens, you'll be dead, and it won't matter to you anymore. In reality, it is very unlikely that any of those things you are afraid of are going to happen to you.

I never worry. There are only two kinds of things in this world people worry about: those things they can do something about, and those things they cannot do anything about. To worry about what you can do something about is your own fault. If you can do something about it, do it, and you won't have to worry about it any more. To worry about what you cannot do anything about is just stupid. Just learn how to deal with what you cannot change and spend your time and effort doing the things you can, and enjoy your life.

You are not going to change the world, or save mankind, or cure the masses of their ignorance and gullibility. There is nothing you can do to change others, and other's lives are not yours to change anyway, and it would be immoral to change them if you could. There is one life you can change and make it anything you choose, your own. Make the most your own life and be all you can be and you will soon stop worrying about what others do and how they live and you will be much happier.

Doesn't that make sense to you?

What makes sense to me is that you neither know the why of Christianity nor its reason for existence, So the idea of the difference between the the purpose of the collective and its effect on the individual and what the individual is capble of makes no sense to you either. It is why it has become meaningless in the secular world and open to be destroyed for something you an IC consider sensible. It is the frightening norm of the world which only a relative few are consciously willing to recognize the difference.

The proof is reading the title of the thread and what has taken place within it.

I cannot possibly disagree with you, because I honestly have no idea what you wrote means. Don't worry about it. I'll take the blame for not being able to understand.

Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17

Typical Simone. She introduces a profound idea in a laconic fashion. The one thing atheism and religion have in common is a reliance on the imaginations of belief and denial. The individual has the advantage here of being able to deal with imagination while the collective is being to taught reject whatever opposes it. That is why Simone wroth of two kinds of atheism. The first or atheism as purification is beneficlal while the second or emotional reaction is really a poison.

[Nick_A]

This thread has 475 posts on it all expressing many different opinions some in agreement and others in disagreement. But all are centered on the beliefs of collectives people considering themselves a part of as opposed to those with the need to transcend opinions in the cause of truth. There is a battle over collectives all expressing opinions derived through earthly life will look down on these strange people

However, what of the individual? Is there value defined by the need for someone or something to scorn? What else can they be worth? If you don’t have a dog who else can you scorn? They must take a position, any position and find its place in the battle over opinions. Is there anything better than the eternal battle over opinions. What would philosophy be without opinions?

RC begn thread on love giving his opinion. Others added there opinions All these opinions are expressions of a horizontal line arising from the earth. Of course there is n dditional possibility But I’m wary to post it because it doesn’t put opinions at the height of conscious supremacy. Doing that can easily cause the powers that be to bring out the varmint and demand he drink the hemlock. This obviously can be a very double edged choice

But the point is that love can have differing degrees of vertical objective quality differing from the horizontal battle over opinions. For those open to it you my find it necessary to risk the hemlock to experience the depth of the idea. This extraordinary idea is know as “diatoma’s ladder of love” It transcends the horizontal battle over opinions in contemplation over the opening awareness of what is greater than our own opinions.

https://www.thoughtco.com/platos-ladder-of-love-2670661

This account of the ladder of love is the source for the familiar notion of "Platonic love," by which is meant the sort of love that is not expressed through sexual relations. The description of the ascent can be viewed as an account of sublimation, the process of transforming one sort of impulse into another, usually, one that is viewed as "higher" or more valuable. In this instance, the sexual desire for a beautiful body becomes sublimated into a desire for philosophical understanding and insight.

If philosophy as arguing over details and being part of a collective and atacking trump, the idea of vertical “ascent” just gets in the way of the battle. But for those not of a collective, here is something which shows you are not alone.

Simone Weil: Love is the Intermediary Between Us and the Divine.

[Nick_A]

Commonsense wrote on thee loyalty thread:

You seem to be saying that loyalty could be a bad thing or a good thing.

Classic secular dualism. The motivations of the Great Beast follow the laws of nature and cosmic principles as does the rest of organic life creating as a whole the beauty we know of as nature

man would be doomed to follow in these laws of force if it wasn't
for third principle introduced here as Diatoma's ladder of love. Of course it must be rejected as the various collectives demand to be given Barrabas. It is the individual who begin to sense what it mean to be human and reject barrabas.

[Gary Childress]

As is obvious, America is moving more and more toward collectivism. All we read of are collectives. Is this desirable? Perhaps we can discuss the essential differences and potentials for both individualism and collectivism when life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness become our desired goal..

I think both concepts of human beings have their pros and cons. One advantage of identifying with a group of people is in taking collective action on things that individuals alone would not be capable of changing. Sometimes that's good, as with the Civil Rights movement and sometimes it can be mob mentality that is irrational.

It's also good to stand as an individual and make your own personal life the best it can be and take individual accountability for ourselves, but sometimes individuals can have irrational wants too, such as with excessive greed, where one becomes so absorbed in personal gain that s/he loses sight of longer-term consequences to the community at large.

As far as being the case that "all we read of are collectives" I don't know if that's true or not. I think there's plenty of individualism out there too. But I do think "collective" has gained more traction as a potentially good word these days than it did during the Cold War. But maybe that's not such a bad thing in moderation, as long as we don't go the route of the former Soviet Union.

[Nick_A]

As is obvious, America is moving more and more toward collectivism. All we read of are collectives. Is this desirable? Perhaps we can discuss the essential differences and potentials for both individualism and collectivism when life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness become our desired goal..

I think both concepts of human beings have their pros and cons. One advantage of identifying with a group of people is in taking collective action on things that individuals alone would not be capable of changing. Sometimes that's good, as with the Civil Rights movement and sometimes it can be mob mentality that is irrational.

It's also good to stand as an individual and make your own personal life the best it can be and take individual accountability for ourselves, but sometimes individuals can have irrational wants too, such as with excessive greed, where one becomes so absorbed in personal gain that s/he loses sight of longer-term consequences to the community at large.

As far as being the case that "all we read of are collectives" I don't know if that's true or not. I think there's plenty of individualism out there too. But I do think "collective" has gained more traction as a potentially good word these days than it did during the Cold War. But maybe that's not such a bad thing in moderation, as long as we don't go the route of the former Soviet Union.

Gary, you seem to be describing individualism and collectivism by the same secular standards. individualism is just unpopular collectivism which easily changes. Yet they are different. Where collectivism is horizontal as are the many forms of the great beast, individualism is vertical and not dependent upon secular definitions. to satisfy the human need for meaning.