Individualism vs. Collectivism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:28 pm The independent individual is not interested in how much anyone else has (except to know, the more others have the more they have for him to trade for), he is only interested in having whatever he knows is his, because he produced it. (red parts my emphasis here)
Did you watch the video, RC? You should.
I did. The one I saw was about someone who ended up bummed because somebody else got more then he did, and someone who got a cow for free and made others jealous, and that was supposed to show what was wrong with socialism. People are jealous of others who have more, not because the got it as a gift or an answer to prayer, but because they made something of themselves. It's hatred of the good for being the good. Successful individualists are always hated, not because they are a danger or harm to anyone else, but because they don't need anyone else and pay their own way.

The second video is worse. What happened to the Venezuelans was the fault of the Venezuelans. They wanted the unearned and free education, health care, guaranteed prices and incomes and got what they prayed for--good and hard. If Venezuelans had been independent individualists, Venezuela would be a free prosperous state today. At this minute there are a few thousand people living in Venezuela (who have nothing to do with the government--except paying the squeeze) who are completely free and prosperous--typical individualists whom you don't hear about because they mind their own business and earn their own way.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm You've got me wrong, RC. You're straw-manning me right now.
I want back to see what I wrote to make sure I had hot accused you of anything. I didn't say anything about you, I was explaining what the solution to the supposed problem described in the video is for everyone to be an independent individualist who never think in those terms or do any of those things. I said, "So, the solution to socialist thinking is the independent individual that never judges things in terms of what others do or have, only in terms of what he himself does and has. ..."
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm I'm no apologist for the Collectivists, nor have I any interest in challenging you to that effect. However, at the same time, there's a problem with "rugged individualism" of the kind you're espousing -- and that is, that it's not actually individual.
I never suggested you were a collectivist. As for straw men, I have never suggested any kind of individualism such as you describe. It would, in fact, be impossible for an independent individualist to be what you describe. What you describe sounds like some religious ascetic. Independent individuals are the only human being capable of truly benevolent social relationships or worthy of them.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm Instead, you're describing how an individual acts within a society. If you were speaking of true individualism, total individualism, you'd be advocating we all become hermits or ascetics.
There you go. But I do not advocate what you have made up and call individualism. I took the trouble to view your silly videos. (I hate videos, because they waste my time. I could have read a transcript of both in a few seconds. My wife and I have not had a TV for over 25 years for the same reason--they waste your time and monopolize your consciousness. If you want me to review anything else, be sure it's in writing.) You, however, have never read my article on what an independent individual is. I don't care if you don't, but before you start criticizing what I advocate, you might want to know what it is.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm What's even more problematic is that Rand speaks of ethics.
I have no idea why you keep referring to Rand, as though she were some authority I follow. You ought to know by now, I follow no authority. I happen to think Rand was wrong with regard to her ethics, but for different reasons from yours.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm And ethics are inevitably about how we treat others, not about just ourselves.
Now this is odd, and since you brought her up: Rand said there was one thing that Jesus said she agreed with, "love they neighbor as thyself," and pointed out, that if one did not love oneself, they could not love their neighbor, but logically the self came first.

If you really thought others were important, you would be promoting the view of the independent individual, because the only human beings who can truly be of a value to anyone else are those who are a value to themselves first. A hedonistic subjectivist wastrel who cannot help himself is certainly not going to be any value to his neighbor or society.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm The absolutely lone individual doesn't even have a single ethical duty. So even Rand's heroes all live within societies, and practice cultural forms within those societies. And architect, for example, is not a lone individual; he is an adherent of the design and construction practices of a group of people known as "architects." He learned his trade from others, practices it with the help of others, and enacts his craft for the benefit of others. He's not going to live in his great building all by himself.
First of all, you are talking about Rand's fictional hero, not mine. Secondly, all of those things you are saying have nothing to do with being an independent individual. Of course an individual lives somewhere, preferable a mostly free society, learns from others, sells his products or services to others, and learns that society's culture so he can function in it. None of that has anything to do with his independence. His independence consist of the fact that all he does he does by his own conscious choice using all those things available in society to achieve his own ends for the sake of his own life and achieving the best he can in all things.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm If individual power were the beginning and end of the story, there would, in fact, be no story at all.

So whether we like it or not, something has to be said about others and about society. To speak only of individualism is not going to convince anyone, because nobody -- not even Rand -- believes that the individual, all by himself, amounts to anything.
Not certain of your point here: About the last thing an independent individual cares about is if anyone else is convince about anything.

I also have no idea what story you are talking about, but one thing is sure: eliminate all the independent individuals in this world and you won't have any others or any society to save or worry about. End of story.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9576
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:28 pm
And ethics are inevitably about how we treat others, not about just ourselves.
Now this is odd, and since you brought her up: Rand said there was one thing that Jesus said she agreed with, "love they neighbor as thyself," and pointed out, that if one did not love oneself, they could not love their neighbor, but logically the self came first.
I read Rand on that.

But actually, RC, Rand was quite wrong.

Kierkegaard pointed this out, in Works of Love. She misunderstood the import of the commandment, and exactly reversed it.

The statement "love your neighbour as yourself" does not prioritize the self, Kierkegaard says, but rather takes as a given that everybody loves themselves...which, of course, they do. When they get up in the morning, whose body do they wash? Whose hair do they comb? For whom do they do almost everything they do throughout the day? Who is at the centre of almost all their concerns? Whose rights do they get angriest about, fastest, whenever they think they've been violated? And why, if they have any trouble loving themselves, do people statistically employ the pronouns "I" and "me" far more than any others?

So Rand was wrong. There's no additional work, no ethical achievement, to be done on loving the self...we're all doing that more than we need to...there's only work to be done on taking some of that concern, and transferring it to the neighbour.
Of course an individual lives somewhere, preferable a mostly free society, learns from others, sells his products or services to others, and learns that society's culture so he can function in it. None of that has anything to do with his independence. His independence consist of the fact that all he does he does by his own conscious choice using all those things available in society to achieve his own ends for the sake of his own life and achieving the best he can in all things.
Of course it has to do with his independence. He has not made himself. His parents made him. He has not educated himself. His school educated him. He has not invented the role in society he inhabits...it's called a "career," and it existed before him. His psychological well-being is associated with his meaningful relationships...which are not unilaterally his, but depend on others as well. As he ages, the "independent man" will increasingly depend on caretakers. And when the individual dies, it is not him who will put himself in the ground.

And after that, if he matters at all, it will not be to himself.
About the last thing an independent individual cares about is if anyone else is convince about anything.
The hermit, maybe. He has no reason to care. But everybody else certainly does.
Nick_A
Posts: 5341
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Nick_A »

I C wrote
The statement "love your neighbour as yourself" does not prioritize the self, Kierkegaard says, but rather takes as a given that everybody loves themselves...which, of course, they do. When they get up in the morning, whose body do they wash? Whose hair do they comb? For whom do they do almost everything they do throughout the day? Who is at the centre of almost all their concerns? Whose rights do they get angriest about, fastest, whenever they think they've been violated? And why, if they have any trouble loving themselves, do people statistically employ the pronouns "I" and "me" far more than any others?
St Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 6
19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
For the collective the desires of the body are conditioned. they are accepted by the masses and opposed by people calling themselves individuals

But for those with a deep appreciation for Christianity the body is not dominant but as the temple of the Holy Spirit, the body serves as the means to become human'

Does Man serve the body as is normal for secularism or does the body serve as the temple of the Holy Spirit and the means for human conscious evolution a person can awaken to? It is normal to ask what the temple is and how it works.

Matthew 16:26
What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
The great question. The collective seeks to win the world by efforts of the collective. The true individual rather than being independent profits by consciously experiencing the world with a force that unifies the dualistic battle between affirmation and denial from a conscious perspective.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:30 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:28 pm
And ethics are inevitably about how we treat others, not about just ourselves.
Now this is odd, and since you brought her up: Rand said there was one thing that Jesus said she agreed with, "love they neighbor as thyself," and pointed out, that if one did not love oneself, they could not love their neighbor, but logically the self came first.
I read Rand on that.

But actually, RC, Rand was quite wrong.
Well, I didn't say she was right, I just thought it was interesting.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:30 pm Kierkegaard pointed this out, in Works of Love. She misunderstood the import of the commandment, and exactly reversed it.
You criticize Rand, but then quote the existentialist Kierkegaard?

Oh well, there is no point going on. Since you won't even consider the fact that someone actually has to have some values and live by them before they can be a value to someone else. It should be obvious that society does not exist without individual human beings. If anything is going to be good for society, it has to be good for the individual human beings that are that society. To subordinate the good of some individuals to the good of society means subordinating some individual for the good of other individuals. It is a kind of slavery you are advocating.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:30 pm
About the last thing an independent individual cares about is if anyone else is convinced about anything.
The hermit, maybe. He has no reason to care. But everybody else certainly does.
No! Everyone else doesn't. Some actually are willing for others to use their own minds and come to their own beliefs. Those who care about what other's believe are intruders in others lives; what others believe is none of their business.

But if someone did choose to be a hermit (something an independent individualist would never do, but many religious nuts have), what would you care? They would be no harm or threat to you or anyone else. What is it about some people that they just cannot bear that everyone does not choose to live their life as they do?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9576
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 1:23 am You criticize Rand, but then quote the existentialist Kierkegaard?
Of course.

Kierkegaard was right about this; Rand was dead wrong.
...you won't even consider the fact that someone actually has to have some values and live by them before they can be a value to someone else.
I never suggested that. People do have to have values to live by...and not just values, but the right values, since there is such a thing as wrong values too.
It should be obvious that society does not exist without individual human beings.
It is.

It is also obvious that individual human beings don't have anything worthy of the name "life" without society. All they have is absolute slavery to self and necessity.
If anything is going to be good for society, it has to be good for the individual human beings that are that society.

Of course.
To subordinate the good of some individuals to the good of society means subordinating some individual for the good of other individuals. It is a kind of slavery you are advocating.
I'm not advocating any such thing. I'm not saying we have any right to subordinate other people to our wishes...where on earth did you get that idea? :shock: I'm saying that good human beings often voluntarily subordinate ego to the best interest of their community. And that is, in fact, what we do all the time. Don't you love your community, or your family? Don't you ever give up one bit of your own immediate interests in order to serve any of theirs?
Some actually are willing for others to use their own minds and come to their own beliefs.
On what premises? How does one "use one's own mind" to do this "coming to belief" precisely?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 1:40 am On what premises? How does one "use one's own mind" to do this "coming to belief" precisely
That is the whole point. How others choose to come to their own beliefs is none of my or your business. Ultimately it is reality that will determined if one chose the right, "premises," or used correct reasoning, not your or my opinion.

Since we've already had long discussions on my ontological and epistemological views, if you have not forgotten, you already know how I go about determining what I believe, and I am well aware of your methods, because you have well explained them. So, I think we've already answered the key question here.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9576
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:39 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 1:40 am On what premises? How does one "use one's own mind" to do this "coming to belief" precisely
That is the whole point. How others choose to come to their own beliefs is none of my or your business.
It is, if we would wish to know if they are rational persons, and whether their beliefs are rationally formed. There is nothing to recommend any belief that is founded on false or insufficient premises.

Now you talk about people "coming to belief" by "using their minds." How can we assess whether or not they "used their minds" in an intelligent way, or "came to beliefs" that are warranted (and maybe even good to be shared by us) if we don't even know what they did?
Ultimately it is reality that will determined if one chose the right, "premises," or used correct reasoning, not your or my opinion.
Of course. So a reasonable person should be able to say what premises he used, and how he reasoned, to arrive at what "beliefs." Opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it -- I agree.

But you have not shown that the thing you commend is even possible, far less how you personally have set about doing it. All I'm asking is for you to share the specifics of a method you both recommend and (presumably) claim to use yourself. Why should you falter at that?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:00 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:39 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 1:40 am On what premises? How does one "use one's own mind" to do this "coming to belief" precisely
That is the whole point. How others choose to come to their own beliefs is none of my or your business.
It is, if we would wish to know if they are rational persons, and whether their beliefs are rationally formed. There is nothing to recommend any belief that is founded on false or insufficient premises.

Now you talk about people "coming to belief" by "using their minds." How can we assess whether or not they "used their minds" in an intelligent way, or "came to beliefs" that are warranted (and maybe even good to be shared by us) if we don't even know what they did?
Why do you want to assess whether others are using their minds in what you think is, "an intelligent way?" Most people are wrong about most everything except the most mundane and simple things. I think it is a fools errand to try to determine all the ways people misuse their minds. What's the point, so long as you know you are using your own mind correctly.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:00 pm
Ultimately it is reality that will determined if one chose the right, "premises," or used correct reasoning, not your or my opinion.
Of course. So a reasonable person should be able to say what premises he used, and how he reasoned, to arrive at what "beliefs." Opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it -- I agree.
Well of course. But one does not have to explain those premises to anyone else, does he?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:00 pm But you have not shown that the thing you commend is even possible, far less how you personally have set about doing it. All I'm asking is for you to share the specifics of a method you both recommend and (presumably) claim to use yourself. Why should you falter at that?
Shown it to whom? No one has to justify their reasoning to anyone else. If you are really interested, I'd be glad to explain, once again, my epistemological views, but I do not think you are really interested, because, when I refer you to places I've already explicated my view in detail, you do not read them.

This is probably a mistake, on my part, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. This is the basic premise of all my reasoning:

I am conscious. Physical existence is that which I am conscious of. My consciousness and what I am conscious of is all that exists. Existence is what it is and has the nature it has independent of my or anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it.

What's your basic premise and how did you settle on it?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9576
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:00 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:39 pm
That is the whole point. How others choose to come to their own beliefs is none of my or your business.
It is, if we would wish to know if they are rational persons, and whether their beliefs are rationally formed. There is nothing to recommend any belief that is founded on false or insufficient premises.

Now you talk about people "coming to belief" by "using their minds." How can we assess whether or not they "used their minds" in an intelligent way, or "came to beliefs" that are warranted (and maybe even good to be shared by us) if we don't even know what they did?
Why do you want to assess whether others are using their minds in what you think is, "an intelligent way?"
That's easy.

Because intelligent, rational people have good ideas, and good ideas are worth having; and if the others ever have a good idea it's purely by way of accident, since nothing they base it upon reflects reality or reason.

Come on, RC...you're more sensible than that. I don't have to explain that to you.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:00 pm
Ultimately it is reality that will determined if one chose the right, "premises," or used correct reasoning, not your or my opinion.
Of course. So a reasonable person should be able to say what premises he used, and how he reasoned, to arrive at what "beliefs." Opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it -- I agree.
Well of course. But one does not have to explain those premises to anyone else, does he?
He doesn't have to, if he doesn't want anyone else to believe them. But if he thinks he's right, and he cares a fig for anyone but himself, he ought to be willing to say why he believes what he believes.

And if he doesn't, why is he so ashamed of his own reasoning?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:00 pm But you have not shown that the thing you commend is even possible, far less how you personally have set about doing it. All I'm asking is for you to share the specifics of a method you both recommend and (presumably) claim to use yourself. Why should you falter at that?
Shown it to whom? No one has to justify their reasoning to anyone else. If you are really interested, I'd be glad to explain, once again, my epistemological views, but I do not think you are really interested, because, when I refer you to places I've already explicated my view in detail, you do not read them.
Not fair, RC.

I've given you plenty of a listen. And I've read several of your articles. And I've spent quite a bit of time speaking with you. But you know that.
This is probably a mistake, on my part, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. This is the basic premise of all my reasoning:

I am conscious. Physical existence is that which I am conscious of. My consciousness and what I am conscious of is all that exists. Existence is what it is and has the nature it has independent of my or anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, RC.

So, as you say, those are your premises. But you say you are able to manufacture beliefs out of them. Now, how do you go about manufacturing your "beliefs" as you call them, out of those premises? I'm interested in your process of deciding. If it's a good one, I'll adopt it, of course. Why wouldn't I take a good idea on board? However, naturally enough, if it's rationality is not clear to me, I'll question it. That's what we do here.
What's your basic premise and how did you settle on it?
Well, I'm not the person who claims that people can "come to belief" by "using their minds." You said that.

For that, you need premises. So I want to understand how your premises connect to the "beliefs" at which you have eventually arrived. Because to say that people "come to belief" makes the whole process you are trying to describe utterly mysterious -- like saying something "came to exist." It's a non-explanation, really.

The obvious question is, "How did one come to that belief?" :shock:

And to say one does it by "using the mind" is also non-specific -- like saying someone does something by "using a hammer."

The obvious questions are "using how"? and "on what material"? :shock:

So I'm just asking the obvious, here.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:17 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:47 pm Why do you want to assess whether others are using their minds in what you think is, "an intelligent way?"
That's easy.

Because intelligent, rational people have good ideas, and good ideas are worth having; and if the others ever have a good idea it's purely by way of accident, since nothing they base it upon reflects reality or reason.

Come on, RC...you're more sensible than that. I don't have to explain that to you.
I'm afraid you do. I can certainly recognize a correct idea without knowing how someone else arrived at it.

A man just had a blow out, and stopped his car near an insane asylum. When he got out of his car to get his spare, he noticed one of the asylum inmates watching him. He ignored the spectator and proceeded to change the flat tire, removing all the lugs and placing them in the hub cap. He removed the flat tire and was in the process of replacing it with the good tire when he accidentally kicked the hub cap, knocking out all the lugs which rolled into a storm drain. The man cursed and exclaimed, "now what am I going to do!"

Just then, the inmate watching him said, "Excuse me, I know what to do." The man just looked at him. The inmate continued, "Take one lug out of each of the other wheels and use them to hold the wheel on until you can get to a service station." The man was shocked. "That's brilliant," he said. "I thought you were supposed to be crazy." The inmate responded, "Oh, I am crazy, but I'm not stupid."

The man did not need to know how the inmate arrived at his good idea to know that it was a good idea.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:00 pm Of course. So a reasonable person should be able to say what premises he used, and how he reasoned, to arrive at what "beliefs." Opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it -- I agree.
Well of course. But one does not have to explain those premises to anyone else, does he?
He doesn't have to, if he doesn't want anyone else to believe them. But if he thinks he's right, and he cares a fig for anyone but himself, he ought to be willing to say why he believes what he believes.
But it's not up to anyone to make other people believe anything. Most people, like me, are always willing to explain why they believe what they do, if someone really wants to know. Most don't, and would actually prefer that you mind your own business.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:00 pm And if he doesn't, why is he so ashamed of his own reasoning?
You need to read your Bible more. It's not shame, it's not willing to cast his pearls before swine.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:00 pm But you have not shown that the thing you commend is even possible, far less how you personally have set about doing it. All I'm asking is for you to share the specifics of a method you both recommend and (presumably) claim to use yourself. Why should you falter at that?
Shown it to whom? No one has to justify their reasoning to anyone else. If you are really interested, I'd be glad to explain, once again, my epistemological views, but I do not think you are really interested, because, when I refer you to places I've already explicated my view in detail, you do not read them.
Not fair, RC.

I've given you plenty of a listen. And I've read several of your articles. And I've spent quite a bit of time speaking with you. But you know that.[/quote]
OK, if you think you have, but if you have, I do not know why you keep asking the same questions.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:17 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:47 pm This is probably a mistake, on my part, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. This is the basic premise of all my reasoning:

I am conscious. Physical existence is that which I am conscious of. My consciousness and what I am conscious of is all that exists. Existence is what it is and has the nature it has independent of my or anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, RC.

So, as you say, those are your premises. But you say you are able to manufacture beliefs out of them. Now, how do you go about manufacturing your "beliefs" as you call them, out of those premises? I'm interested in your process of deciding. If it's a good one, I'll adopt it, of course. Why wouldn't I take a good idea on board? However, naturally enough, if it's rationality is not clear to me, I'll question it. That's what we do here.
Well it may be what you and I do, but I've seen a lot of other things going on here.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:17 pm
What's your basic premise and how did you settle on it?
Well, I'm not the person who claims that people can "come to belief" by "using their minds." You said that.

For that, you need premises. So I want to understand how your premises connect to the "beliefs" at which you have eventually arrived. Because to say that people "come to belief" makes the whole process you are trying to describe utterly mysterious -- like saying something "came to exist." It's a non-explanation, really.

The obvious question is, "How did one come to that belief?" :shock:

And to say one does it by "using the mind" is also non-specific -- like saying someone does something by "using a hammer."

The obvious questions are "using how"? and "on what material"? :shock:

So I'm just asking the obvious, here.
No! You are evading my question. I gave you a simple straightforward answer to the question of what I used as the premise of all my reasoning, and I asked you the same, and all you gave me was some song and dance about what you did or did not claim and then proceeded to ask more questions about how I used my reasoning, how I arrived at my premise, etc. etc. etc.

I knew I made a mistake. Perhaps you cannot even see it, but I regard that evasion as dishonest. What is it about the premise you hold (to use your expression) that you are so ashamed of it you are not willing to state it plainly?

Unless you do, I think I must honestly assume you do not have one. As you said, "a reasonable person should be able to say what premises he used." So why didn't you?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9576
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:56 pm But it's not up to anyone to make other people believe anything. Most people, like me, are always willing to explain why they believe what they do, if someone really wants to know. Most don't, and would actually prefer that you mind your own business.
Well, clearly, I want to know.
It's not shame, it's not willing to cast his pearls before swine.
Or the man doesn't actually have pearls in hand. Either way, it's not going to be apparent if he won't open his clenched fist.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:00 pm Not fair, RC.

I've given you plenty of a listen. And I've read several of your articles. And I've spent quite a bit of time speaking with you. But you know that.
OK, if you think you have, but if you have, I do not know why you keep asking the same questions.
That's easy. I'm not getting the answers. That may be my fault, or perhaps you're not actually getting to the question. However, we can keep trying.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:17 pm So, as you say, those are your premises. But you say you are able to manufacture beliefs out of them. Now, how do you go about manufacturing your "beliefs" as you call them, out of those premises? I'm interested in your process of deciding. If it's a good one, I'll adopt it, of course. Why wouldn't I take a good idea on board? However, naturally enough, if it's rationality is not clear to me, I'll question it. That's what we do here.
Well it may be what you and I do, but I've seen a lot of other things going on here.
Okay, fair enough...so have I. But this is now you and I talking.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 5:17 pm
What's your basic premise and how did you settle on it?
Well, I'm not the person who claims that people can "come to belief" by "using their minds." You said that.

For that, you need premises. So I want to understand how your premises connect to the "beliefs" at which you have eventually arrived. Because to say that people "come to belief" makes the whole process you are trying to describe utterly mysterious -- like saying something "came to exist." It's a non-explanation, really.

The obvious question is, "How did one come to that belief?" :shock:

And to say one does it by "using the mind" is also non-specific -- like saying someone does something by "using a hammer."

The obvious questions are "using how"? and "on what material"? :shock:

So I'm just asking the obvious, here.
No! You are evading my question. I gave you a simple straightforward answer to the question of what I used as the premise of all my reasoning, and I asked you the same, and all you gave me was some song and dance about what you did or did not claim and then proceeded to ask more questions about how I used my reasoning, how I arrived at my premise, etc. etc. etc.
Not at all, RC. I did not make the claim that people can "come to (any grounded or reasonable) beliefs" by "using their minds," with no more to be said about it, and no ontological beliefs specified. In fact, I think ontological assumptions are primary, and precede both reason and ethics. But it seemed to me you were saying that people can just "use their minds" with no more said about what they're using them ON, and can "come to (good) beliefs" by that method. And it was that claim that I was questioning. I think that people with bad ontological presuppositions "use their minds" in such a ways as to come to bad "beliefs."

And if they can't, then you would have to believe that the only way people ever come to bad beliefs is by "not using their minds." In other words, you would have to be of the opinion that the only good way to "use your mind" was the way that you yourself "use" it. And everybody else's problem was that they were not enough like you.

This is why your claim was never my claim in the first place. If I don't defend such a claim, it's only because I don't believe your claim is justified. So how could I be anticipated to defend the unjustifiable? You have certainly not heard me saying anything like, "just use your mind" and you'll come to good "beliefs." :shock:

However, if you want to ask about my ontological presuppositions, that's a conversation we can have, so long as I can figure out what you mean by this "use your mind" process to which you so casually allude.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:43 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:56 pm But it's not up to anyone to make other people believe anything. Most people, like me, are always willing to explain why they believe what they do, if someone really wants to know. Most don't, and would actually prefer that you mind your own business.
Well, clearly, I want to know.
I don't think so.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:43 pm However, if you want to ask about my ontological presuppositions, that's a conversation we can have, so long as I can figure out what you mean by this "use your mind" process to which you so casually allude.
Of course you cannot, "figure it out," because you obviously do not want to.

When I wrote: "Some actually are willing for others to use their own minds and come to their own beliefs," our asked, "On what premises?"

When I wrote, "Ultimately it is reality that will determined if one chose the right, "premises," or used correct reasoning, not your or my opinion," you wrote, "Of course. So a reasonable person should be able to say what premises he used ..."

As a gesture toward a reasonable discussion I provided the premise on which all my other reasoning is based and asked you to do the same. You have posted twice since then and still have not provided what I asked for. Of course you don't have to do something just because I asked you to, but I'm certainly not going to provide answers to your further questions if you aren't going to answer mine. If we are going to go any further in this discussion we at least need to know what each other's basic premises are, which, "a reasonable person should be able to say."
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9576
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:41 am As a gesture toward a reasonable discussion I provided the premise on which all my other reasoning is based and asked you to do the same.
But you gave me premises that were unconnected to any conclusions. You didn't say what you were making out of those premises.

That's hardly forthcoming, RC.
You have posted twice since then and still have not provided what I asked for.

I did. I said that I did not share your supposition that "using one's mind" was a sufficient account of your subsequent "beliefs." Since it was YOUR claim, not mine, that "using ones mind" WAS a sufficient account of your beliefs, you can't ask me to defend your point for you.
I'm certainly not going to provide answers to your further questions if you aren't going to answer mine.
I said I would. :shock: Read the last line of my last message again:

However, if you want to ask about my ontological presuppositions, that's a conversation we can have, so long as I can figure out what you mean by this "use your mind" process to which you so casually allude.

See it? It's in red.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:29 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:41 am As a gesture toward a reasonable discussion I provided the premise on which all my other reasoning is based and asked you to do the same.
But you gave me premises that were unconnected to any conclusions. You didn't say what you were making out of those premises.

That's hardly forthcoming, RC.
You have posted twice since then and still have not provided what I asked for.

I did. I said that I did not share your supposition that "using one's mind" was a sufficient account of your subsequent "beliefs." Since it was YOUR claim, not mine, that "using ones mind" WAS a sufficient account of your beliefs, you can't ask me to defend your point for you.
No, I never said that. That was entirely your interpretation and you know better. If I say you have to have gasoline for your car run you won't argue that I'm saying having gasoline alone is sufficient for making a car run. Because you know that's not true and you know I know that's not true and would never mean that.

So, I went back to see when you slipped this bit of obfuscation into the argument.
Not at all, RC. I did not make the claim that people can "come to (any grounded or reasonable) beliefs" by "using their minds," with no more to be said about it, and no ontological beliefs specified. In fact, I think ontological assumptions are primary, and precede both reason and ethics. But it seemed to me you were saying that people can just "use their minds" with no more said about what they're using them ON, and can "come to (good) beliefs" by that method. And it was that claim that I was questioning. I think that people with bad ontological presuppositions "use their minds" in such a ways as to come to bad "beliefs."

And if they can't, then you would have to believe that the only way people ever come to bad beliefs is by "not using their minds."
Now I hesitate to repeat what I've said over and over because I don't want to annoy people, but apparently it is necessary. The mind is that unique aspect of human conscious that is volitional (the necessity and ability to consciously choose all one thinks and does), intellectual (the necessity and ability to gain and hold knowledge), and rational (the necessity and ability to use knowledge to ask and answer questions and to make judgements). The mind is not feelings, not desires, and not instinct, which are things which all animals have. The mind is only those attributes of consciousness which only human beings have.

One thing is certain. Without using the mind there is no knowledge. But like any other human attribute, it can be used incorrectly, and usually is, but it is nevertheless true, if one is going to have correct beliefs (knowledge), the mind is the only attribute human beings have with which to gain knowledge.

I never said that which you implied, "I did not make the claim that people can "come to (any grounded or reasonable) beliefs" by "using their minds," with no more to be said about it, and no ontological beliefs specified." NEITHER DID I!
I'm certainly not going to provide answers to your further questions if you aren't going to answer mine.
I said I would. :shock: Read the last line of my last message again:

However, if you want to ask about my ontological presuppositions, that's a conversation we can have, so long as I can figure out what you mean by this "use your mind" process to which you so casually allude.

See it? It's in red.[/quote]
I'm very patient, but not easily badgered. You can keep insisting I answer more questions and provide more explanation in any color you like, but until you answer my question I cannot not honestly address yours.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9576
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:29 am ...it was YOUR claim, not mine, that "using ones mind" WAS a sufficient account of your beliefs, you can't ask me to defend your point for you.
No, I never said that.
Your exact wording was: "Some actually are willing for others to use their own minds and come to their own beliefs."

All I'm asking you is what you meant by exactly what you said. If you meant something completely different, would you prefer to reword? I'm fine if you do.
One thing is certain. Without using the mind there is no knowledge. But like any other human attribute, it can be used incorrectly, and usually is, but it is nevertheless true, if one is going to have correct beliefs (knowledge), the mind is the only attribute human beings have with which to gain knowledge.
Of course. But HOW one "uses the mind" to become to (I'm presuming you mean true or good) "beliefs" is not here made clear by you at all. For it is equally clear that other people "use" their "minds" to come to very bad or foolish beliefs. I'm just asking what characterizes the kind of mind-use you're advocating, so that it conduces to the former not the latter. Fair enough?
...until you answer my question I cannot not honestly address yours.
You can't explain what you meant by "Some actually are willing for others to use their own minds and come to their own beliefs," unless I explain my own ontological suppositions to you first?

Why would that be? :shock:
Post Reply