the problem of the individual and the state
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2024 4:26 pm
In this post, I am going attempt to relate the issues
of our times, the political, social, economic
and philosophical into a possible solution or course of action
for us, both individually and collectively..... the individual aspect
and the collective aspect of course represents the micro and the
macro theme of our lives.....
as a broad theme, it seems to me that, again broadly, that the left/liberals
tend to favor more collective actions and the right/conservatives tend
to favor more individual actions...this individualism and collectivism
of America is reflected in all kinds of ways within America.....
for example, capitalism is more individualism and communism is
more collective... I suspect, again, can't prove, but suspect that
part of the ''modern'' problem lies in the inability of ours to
be moderate in being both an individual and as part of a group.....
we lean too far on one side or the other... but personally, given a choice,
I would rather lean into the collective than individualism....
part of the problem as I see, it is also the fact that few, if any, seems
to present an actual goal or point to being an individual or part of a
collective/community....
so, we have two bricks, so far, in our little wall, one is this conflict
between individualism and collectivism and there being no goal in
either one....
''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their creator, with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed''
for me, this passage brings out both the individual and the collective
nature of both being an American and being human....
but if I were to have a problem with this passage, it would be this,
it neglected our duties... of course, Kant writings are in the future,
what is our duty to the state and what is our duty to ourselves?
For being human is not just about our freedoms or liberties or happiness,
but also, about our obligations, responsibilities, and yes, duties to
both ourselves and to others.... and we have never really worked them out,
even though they are essential to our being human....
for we are born of evolution and the primary knowing of being human
is that we are social creatures... we are born of the society and state...
we cannot survive on our own, we cannot achieve our own personal
goals of achieving our bodily and psychological needs without
others... I cannot meet my bodily needs of eating, water, shelter,
education, health care, without others... and I cannot meet my
psychological needs of love, safety/security, being esteemed by others,
and a sense of belonging without others...
the creation of the state/government is a means for us to be
able to achieve our needs.. that is the essential point of the state,
to allow us a way to achieve our needs, both bodily and psychological.....
and now let us return to the tendency of the right and left...
given these idea's, we can see that the left has a better sense
of the value of the state... for we can achieve our needs, better through
collective actions, not by individual actions....
the bottom line for human beings is to achieve their needs...
and the question becomes, how best to achieve that goal?
and for this, we need both individual and collective participation
in what it means to be human....
Yesterday, a young kid came into the store... he and it was clearly a he,
was wearing a combination of women's clothes and men's clothes....
including neon green high heels, and was I offended? Yes, neon green
high heels, seriously? but do I have a right to prevent this young lad from
being who he is? No more than he has a right to prevent me from being
who I am.... and am I offended is enough to prevent him from dressing
the way he wants to? Entire state laws are devoted to preventing this young man
from dressing the way he wants to dress and by what right do we have
to prevent his way of dressing? It violates OUR sense of decency...
OUR sense of what is male or female... if he is trying to reach his needs,
and that is in this case, his psychological needs, then by what right do we
have to prevent this? the argument of the right wing, is that somehow, never really
laid out in full how, but that somehow, this young man cross dressing will
bring about the end of civilization we know it...
that this young man is violating the norms of behavior and morality....
which is really nothing more than an understanding of what it means
to be human.... Ethics is really just theory of being human....
Animals don't have ethics, they have no theory of being animal
or of the correct behavior of being an animal... they simply follow
their instincts... and when the right wing demands that we must
hold to a man and a woman being the only right way to exists,
that too is just another example of humans acting from instinct....
but why must we limit what human being must do to become
who they are? the conservatives have a very limited notion of
what it means to be human...we must be a certain type of person,
to be human...and yet, at the exact same time, the conservative
demands individualism... as opposed to liberals...
we can be individuals and still act within the needs of the state/
government... our individual needs of being who we are, doesn't
clash with our interactions with the state/government....
or how does that young man neon greens high heels prevent
him from working inside the state to achieve both his goals
and mine?
Our current problems, both socially and politically is that we haven't yet, worked out
our roles within the society/state.... what does it mean to be human in our
modern day society/state? Is the goal to become who we are, in conflict
with our expected obligations and responsibilities of being members
of the state/society? the right wing believes that becoming who we are,
is in conflict with the state/society... but this side of modern existence
has never really been explored by philosophers... how do we hold to,
maintain our own sense of self, given that we must also engaged with
the state/society? Do the two mesh or do they clash?
More after the break...
Kropotkin
of our times, the political, social, economic
and philosophical into a possible solution or course of action
for us, both individually and collectively..... the individual aspect
and the collective aspect of course represents the micro and the
macro theme of our lives.....
as a broad theme, it seems to me that, again broadly, that the left/liberals
tend to favor more collective actions and the right/conservatives tend
to favor more individual actions...this individualism and collectivism
of America is reflected in all kinds of ways within America.....
for example, capitalism is more individualism and communism is
more collective... I suspect, again, can't prove, but suspect that
part of the ''modern'' problem lies in the inability of ours to
be moderate in being both an individual and as part of a group.....
we lean too far on one side or the other... but personally, given a choice,
I would rather lean into the collective than individualism....
part of the problem as I see, it is also the fact that few, if any, seems
to present an actual goal or point to being an individual or part of a
collective/community....
so, we have two bricks, so far, in our little wall, one is this conflict
between individualism and collectivism and there being no goal in
either one....
''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their creator, with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed''
for me, this passage brings out both the individual and the collective
nature of both being an American and being human....
but if I were to have a problem with this passage, it would be this,
it neglected our duties... of course, Kant writings are in the future,
what is our duty to the state and what is our duty to ourselves?
For being human is not just about our freedoms or liberties or happiness,
but also, about our obligations, responsibilities, and yes, duties to
both ourselves and to others.... and we have never really worked them out,
even though they are essential to our being human....
for we are born of evolution and the primary knowing of being human
is that we are social creatures... we are born of the society and state...
we cannot survive on our own, we cannot achieve our own personal
goals of achieving our bodily and psychological needs without
others... I cannot meet my bodily needs of eating, water, shelter,
education, health care, without others... and I cannot meet my
psychological needs of love, safety/security, being esteemed by others,
and a sense of belonging without others...
the creation of the state/government is a means for us to be
able to achieve our needs.. that is the essential point of the state,
to allow us a way to achieve our needs, both bodily and psychological.....
and now let us return to the tendency of the right and left...
given these idea's, we can see that the left has a better sense
of the value of the state... for we can achieve our needs, better through
collective actions, not by individual actions....
the bottom line for human beings is to achieve their needs...
and the question becomes, how best to achieve that goal?
and for this, we need both individual and collective participation
in what it means to be human....
Yesterday, a young kid came into the store... he and it was clearly a he,
was wearing a combination of women's clothes and men's clothes....
including neon green high heels, and was I offended? Yes, neon green
high heels, seriously? but do I have a right to prevent this young lad from
being who he is? No more than he has a right to prevent me from being
who I am.... and am I offended is enough to prevent him from dressing
the way he wants to? Entire state laws are devoted to preventing this young man
from dressing the way he wants to dress and by what right do we have
to prevent his way of dressing? It violates OUR sense of decency...
OUR sense of what is male or female... if he is trying to reach his needs,
and that is in this case, his psychological needs, then by what right do we
have to prevent this? the argument of the right wing, is that somehow, never really
laid out in full how, but that somehow, this young man cross dressing will
bring about the end of civilization we know it...
that this young man is violating the norms of behavior and morality....
which is really nothing more than an understanding of what it means
to be human.... Ethics is really just theory of being human....
Animals don't have ethics, they have no theory of being animal
or of the correct behavior of being an animal... they simply follow
their instincts... and when the right wing demands that we must
hold to a man and a woman being the only right way to exists,
that too is just another example of humans acting from instinct....
but why must we limit what human being must do to become
who they are? the conservatives have a very limited notion of
what it means to be human...we must be a certain type of person,
to be human...and yet, at the exact same time, the conservative
demands individualism... as opposed to liberals...
we can be individuals and still act within the needs of the state/
government... our individual needs of being who we are, doesn't
clash with our interactions with the state/government....
or how does that young man neon greens high heels prevent
him from working inside the state to achieve both his goals
and mine?
Our current problems, both socially and politically is that we haven't yet, worked out
our roles within the society/state.... what does it mean to be human in our
modern day society/state? Is the goal to become who we are, in conflict
with our expected obligations and responsibilities of being members
of the state/society? the right wing believes that becoming who we are,
is in conflict with the state/society... but this side of modern existence
has never really been explored by philosophers... how do we hold to,
maintain our own sense of self, given that we must also engaged with
the state/society? Do the two mesh or do they clash?
More after the break...
Kropotkin