Individualism vs. Collectivism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 4315
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:14 pm

Dachshund
So Nick, you can tell your beloved Simone Weil that the "scientific" socialism she had a crush on, turned out to be a positively inhuman and evil political ideology that totally misunderstood human nature.

The concept of collectivism is, to me, effectively synonymous with statism, and the state is like fire or alcohol, it is a very good slave, but fucking terrible master! Which is another way of saying there has NEVER yet been a successful socialist state, and not just that , but when socialist economies inevitably go "BANg" the consequence is the kind of misery and suffering you are seeing right now in Venezuela. A large number of socialist states have also starved, tortured, imprisoned and murdered their own citizens en masse. The basics human rights of life, liberty and property are not respected in socialist (collectivist) states.
While it is true that Simone Weil was the highly valued intellect of the French Marxist party and the darling of Leon Trotsky in her early twenties, her obsession with truth did not allow her to remain a slave to Marxism. She witnessed its hypocrisy and couldn’t remain with it. She wrote:
When I think that the great Bolchevik leaders claimed to be creating a free working class and probably not one of them -- surely not Trotsky, and I don't think Lenin did either -- ever set foot in a factory and hence did not have the faintest idea of the real conditions which determine the servitude or freedom of these workers -- politics seems a sinister farce indeed.
She came to see that the values the party spoke of were only possible with the help of grace which was denied.

Plato’s Republic could function theoretically because it was ruled by philosopher kings. They were developed men who lived higher values. The had been exposed to the Good through special teaching. Of course the leaders of socialism are just fallen men who will exhibit the same hypocrisy normal for the human condition.

That is why Simone died a Christian mystic. She came to understand that scientific socialism is an impossible ideal. Without the help of grace the human condition assures its failure regardless of the finest platitudes to the contrary.. So she became a true individual necessary to pursue her need to experience the truth of the world and the human condition functioning within it

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by RCSaunders » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:07 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:38 am
Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing.
Only those who understand that all political views, even Ayn Rand's, are collective views, can truly be individualists. Though Rand was the arch-individualist, at least in her writing, she also believed in a state, a body of individuals with the power to use force to ensure such things as "rights."

An individualist (not the Randian variety) has no interest in someone else ensuring he is able to live as he chooses (as if any government could possibly do that). An individualist has no use for the political concept of rights. An individualist is too busy pursuing his life, protecting his own person and property, achieving all he can as an individual, seeking nothing in this world he has not achieved or acquired (earned) by his own effort. He has no need of anyone else's agreement or approval and no interest in interfering in the lives of others or changing how they choose to live them, which is why individualist are the only individuals who a capable of having real and enjoyable social relationships with others.

By nature, ever human being is an individualist. Every individual has their own mind, must choose for themselves what to believe, what to value, and how to live their lives. Most hate the idea of freedom. Freedom terrifies them because they know, if they are truly free they will be able to choose and do anything but will be responsible for all their choices and actions and have very little confidence in themselves that they can live successful fufilled lives on their own. It is easier to trust their decisions to someone else, the government, their religion, their society or some other authority than to think for oneself. It is safer to be part of a pack or tribe and trust in the choices of the majority than to be on one's own, fully responsible for one's own life and success. But the collectivists hate those who do choose to be free, self-responsible, productive, honest, decent individuals who don't need others to tell them how to live, who demand nothing of anyone else, (except to be left alone) and refuse to have anyone else demand anything of them.

Unfortunately, choosing to live as anything other than what one is, an independent individual with one's own mind and ability to think and be all one can be, is a choice to be something less than fully human. It explains most of what you see in the world today.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:15 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:07 pm
By nature, ever human being is an individualist.
By nature - individualists are extinct. Show me an individualist producing offspring on their own.

Hermaphrodites can be individualists - humans can't.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Speakpigeon » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:48 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:52 am
You miss the forest for the trees. You've avoided the big pocture which was introduced at the beginning of the article
Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state?
Is your ideal to the atom of society whose reason to be is determined by society or is your ideal the conscious individual intended by universal evolution?
False dichotomie, a technique used by salesmen.
People determine themselves. They decide for themselves if they need an ideal. You are trying to sell your idea to other people without being able to rationally justify it and so there is no good reason to adopt it. There is no objective need to have an ideal and there are other ideals to choose from instead of your false dichotomie.
EB

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5138
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Speak

Post by henry quirk » Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:26 am

"People determine themselves. They decide for themselves if they need an ideal."

Indeed, and that's the bottom line: each deciding for himself how to discharge his life. What seems to lost here: there's a whole whack of folks, in high & low places, who'd really prefer that people did things 'their' way & they're willin' to go pretty far in seein' that people 'do'. Don't know Nick is tryin' to 'sell' anything. Seems to me: he's just pointin' out sumthin' interesting that seems to be at play.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:41 am

People only determine those variables which are in their control. And a whole lot of variables aren't.

Luck plays a larger part in "self-determinism" than most individualists care to admit.

e.g you could determine whether you need an ideal, but you can't determine whether you need air, food and shelter. Which necessitates a distinction between needs and wants.

The implication being that we have higher degree of control over our wants and lower degree of control over our needs.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:50 am, edited 4 times in total.

Nick_A
Posts: 4315
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:44 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:48 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:52 am
You miss the forest for the trees. You've avoided the big pocture which was introduced at the beginning of the article
Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state?
Is your ideal to the atom of society whose reason to be is determined by society or is your ideal the conscious individual intended by universal evolution?
False dichotomie, a technique used by salesmen.
People determine themselves. They decide for themselves if they need an ideal. You are trying to sell your idea to other people without being able to rationally justify it and so there is no good reason to adopt it. There is no objective need to have an ideal and there are other ideals to choose from instead of your false dichotomie.
EB


What is an individual in comparison to a reacting atom of the Great Beast or the grand collective called society?

A human individual would first be master of themselves. They would have the quality of consciousness that understands its connection to higher consciousness
This would be its dominant attribute. This quality of consciousness opens our feelings to experience objective conscience. By definition the true individual is not selfish but rather understands what it means to be human. The body is used in a way that serves consciousness and objective conscience.

Atoms of the Great Beast are called individuals because they have a body and name. They are governed by the desires of the body. Conscience devolves into emotional reactions which serve acquired egoism or misguided self importance. Consciousness is reduced to type of duality normal for computers. Consequently it is void of the feeling for objective values.

For these people there is no need for an ideal which is not a collective created by indoctrination. They cannot be masters of themselves since this self doesn't exist. It is replaced by acquired habitual reactions to people and the collective in general

Where the individual is master of themselves, the self becomes a creation of the grand collective reacting to how it has been conditioned.

If true, the natural question is if a society could ever develop which will serve in the creation of individuals or must society be doomed to the practice of diminishing human being so it accepts meaning and purpose by reacting as a slave to indoctrination?
Simone Weil lamented that education had become no more than "an instrument manipulated by teachers for manufacturing more teachers, who in their turn will manufacture more teachers." rather than a guide to getting out of the cave.
Once again the lady hits the nail on the head. Becoming a human individual is the process of getting out of the cave. What could be more repulsive for any philosophy glorifying cave life? Is it any wonder why the Great Beast must struggle against "awakening?"

Ansiktsburk
Posts: 255
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Ansiktsburk » Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:47 am

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:38 am
One of the most important basic and avoided questions is if a person considers themselves essentially an Individualist or a collectivist. It seems more enjoyable to argue over techniques or good and bad. But the question of Individualism vs. Collectivism as desired method to improve human nature puts us on the spot.

There are many ways to discuss it after we agree as to their basic difference so I'd like to ask you if you agree with the following distinction:

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/is ... lectivism/
The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? With government expanding ever more rapidly—seizing and spending more and more of our money on “entitlement” programs and corporate bailouts, and intruding on our businesses and lives in increasingly onerous ways—the need for clarity on this issue has never been greater. Let us begin by defining the terms at hand.

Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.

Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” According to collectivism, the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. As one advocate of this idea puts it: “Man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations.”1

Individualism or collectivism—which of these ideas is correct? Which has the facts on its side?
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..
To answer the OP.
No. i dont agree with that distinction.
People claiming to be individualists by that neo-liberal definition is normally higly dependent on their family and surrounding, deeply dependent on the collective they were brougt up in. They do most often not live on the fruits of their labour, but he fruits of the hard work workers did for some grandparents of the person in question. And are driven by mothers having the background to ask the person as a youngster ”what do yo want to do with your life”

If you want individualism you want equal opportunity and a fair race. And that requires the social-liberal kind of states we saw in the western countries before the ninties. Above mentioned celebrity daughter, who happens to be a fellow countrywoman of mine, is an exquisite example of the kind of individual created by the kind of individualism the OP distinction caters for.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:18 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:44 am
What is an individual in comparison to a reacting atom of the Great Beast or the grand collective called society?
A human individual would first be master of themselves. They would have the quality of consciousness that understands its connection to higher consciousness
No.
Bad premise. I don't even need to read the rest of the plug.
Humans are whatever they are. Presuming yourself capable of encapsulating that reality into meaningless drivel is merely pathetic.
I'm a human being and I'm perfectly happy with my own consciousness having zero connection to any "higher consciousness". So, clearly, you have no notion at all of what a human individual might be.
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Speak

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:24 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:26 am
"People determine themselves. They decide for themselves if they need an ideal."

Indeed, and that's the bottom line: each deciding for himself how to discharge his life. What seems to lost here: there's a whole whack of folks, in high & low places, who'd really prefer that people did things 'their' way & they're willin' to go pretty far in seein' that people 'do'. Don't know Nick is tryin' to 'sell' anything. Seems to me: he's just pointin' out sumthin' interesting that seems to be at play.
Come on, the guy is transparent. I've seen quite a few of that sort. I guess it all comes with the obvious fact that their explicit assumptions are preposterously out of kilter with your own experience of life. You don't even have to think to feel the profound wrongness in their words. But, you'll see. :)
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:29 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:41 am
you can't determine whether you need air, food and shelter.
Wrong assumption.
I all rather obviously depends on what I called "people". A person is definitely not just the mind of this person. So, read again.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:41 am
Which necessitates a distinction between needs and wants.
Irrelevant to my point.
EB

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5138
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Speak

Post by henry quirk » Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:26 pm

"Come on, the guy is transparent."

Sure, but that doesn't invalidate his observation: the hard codification of society, the diminishment of 'one' & and glorification of 'many'. The tension & war between 'i' & 'We'.

You don't have to approve of the tissue he hangs on the skeleton to see the skeleton as sound.

Nick_A
Posts: 4315
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Speak

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:30 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:26 pm
"Come on, the guy is transparent."

Sure, but that doesn't invalidate his observation: the hard codification of society, the diminishment of 'one' & and glorification of 'many'. The tension & war between 'i' & 'We'.

You don't have to approve of the tissue he hangs on the skeleton to see the skeleton as sound.

The essential purpose of philosophy isn’t to provide answers but rather to open the mind to questions and the basic contradictions we live with. Nietzxche introduces two qualities of Man: animal Man and the Overman. Animal Man lives in Plato’s cave and his life is the result of conditioning to cave life. The overman has left the psychological confines of Plato’s cave and can do anything.
“Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over an abyss.” ~ Nietzsche
However, even though the Overman can do anything he doesn’t know what to do so dominates the earth as opposed to experiencing objective human meaning and purpose Jesus came to know.
Matthew 4:

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
Where the Overman dominates the earth, Jesus could do anything but knew rather than dominating the earth his purpose was to serve a universal purpose rather than selfishness.

The first step to individualism is the recognition that we live as an indoctrinated slave in Plato’s cave lacking the qualities necessary for human individuality. Collectivists have no conception of the relativity of human being and how far animal Man is from conscious Man.
The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred millions to a poetic or divine life. To be awake is to be alive. I have never yet met a man who was quite awake. How could I have looked him in the face? - Thoreau, Walden
How many have the humility necessary to contemplate this observation rather than emotionally deny it? Yet such humility is part of the necessary first step towards the psychological freedom of individuality. The World must reject it to protect its belief in self serving imagination.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:53 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:29 am
A person is definitely not just the mind of this person.
Did I say that? No? Then why strawman me?
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:29 am
So, read again.
You want me to do the same thing over and over in hope for a different outcome?

It's not very sage advice.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:51 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:53 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:29 am
A person is definitely not just the mind of this person.
Did I say that? No? Then why strawman me?
Did I say that? No? Then why strawman me?
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:53 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:29 am
So, read again.
You want me to do the same thing over and over in hope for a different outcome?
Not over and over. I asked you just to do it once. You're just being delirious.

And then, if you still can't understand what I actually said, sure, I have to give up.

And indeed, you've just confirmed you can't understand the second time around, even though I gave you a very explicit clue to help you understand.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:53 pm
It's not very sage advice.
Yes, I get it, you're beyond reprieve, but I repeatedly suggested you give up commenting on my posts. I think that's a very sage advice but one you show yourself unwilling to follow, or unable to stop yourself disregarding.

Come on, man, stop wasting your time on irrelevant comments nobody will care about.
EB
Last edited by Speakpigeon on Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests