16 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFSelfishness is most often viewed and used as a perjorative.
I was brought up to believe that "individualism" is expressed through participation. Our "individuality" is our unique set of characteristics when we interact with others. Thus "individualism" is, in part, our sense of self and identity ("individuality" ) coupled with the exercise of autonomy and taking of reponsibility, all in the context of others.
Many de ...[text shortened]... cannot truly exist without the other. At least not in any meaningful sense.
Social responsibility the opposite.
Selfishness really stems from the first basic instinct of animal life on the planet, that of survival. A man, before he can worry about social responsibility, must survive, eat, sleep, be sheltered, and defended against predators. It is the same with every species on the planet.
Man lacking great strength, blinding speed, or thick skin learned to rely on his intellect, and the strength of numbers to accomplish survival, first in family groups, and then in tribes, and then to more complex societies.
All this is based on his selfish instinct for survival.
The conflict between individualism and social responsibility comes when society demands the individual forget his own survival and prosperity in favor of that of the group. It is a fairly natural thing for the same thing to happen naturally and voluntarily by individuals engaging in teamwork. When the tribal chief, medicine man, or politbureau demands such sacrifice for the collective, individualism has been sacrificed.
Summary: Individualism = voluntary cooperation to accomplish individual goals which tangentially benefit the collective.
Collectivism = coerced cooperation, to accomplish societal goals, with disregard to the individual goals and desires.
16 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignYawn. You are like a broken record! Is your post supposed to be a response to mine?
Selfishness is most often viewed and used as a perjorative.
Social responsibility the opposite.
Selfishness really stems from the first basic instinct of animal life on the planet, that of survival. A man, before he can worry about social responsibility, must survive, eat, sleep, be sheltered, and defended against predators. It is the same with ...[text shortened]... d cooperation, to accomplish societal goals, with disregard to the individual goals and desires.
...politbureau ...Collectivism... society demands the individual forget his own survival and prosperity... sacrifice for the collective... coerced cooperation ... disregard to the individual goals and desires...
You seem obsessed. I wasn't in any way whatsoever trying to promote Marxism or anything remotely like it. Why are you always in That-U.S.-General-in-Dr Strangelove Mode?
I am arguing that our "individualism" is manifested through participation. How else can it manifest itself? What is the sound of one hand clapping? If the sound waves of a falling tree never reach an ear, then there is no sound. How we are or what we do when we gather nuts and berries or drive our SUV in the suburbs or skin a Dodo bird alone is irrelevant. Does a last human left on earth continue to exercise "individualism"? Of course not. What he or she does can be described with verbs, it doesn't need a definition. Who would the definition be for?
"Individualism" only has meaning in a context. It is our uniqueness and autonomy in the context of other people. As I said before, we all specialize to a degree, and this specialization, along with the autonomy we exercise, delineates our "individuality" and our contribution. Being different from the others in the group and making our contribution is "individualism".
If our "individualism" strikes others as completely self-sufficient and self-orientated, then that's fine. It is what it is. And each person is who he or she is. It is a form of "individualism".
If our "individualism" strikes others as oddly self-sacrificing and entirely aimed at serving societal goals, then that is a kind of "individualism" too. The point being, "individualism" does not mean anything without the context of other people, family groups, tribes, and complex societies.
How we balance "social responsibility" with "individual responsibility", whether the our contribution is voluntary cooperation or coerced cooperation, and the definition of societal goals is all retail politics and is all decided by ballot boxes, jails, lobbying, firearms and soundbites.
And so at the end of it all, you finish with "Individualism [is] voluntary cooperation to accomplish individual goals which tangentially benefit the collective", which is for most intents and purposes, the same as - or at least 100% compatible with - mine (except for the weasel word: "tangentially" which made me smile a little - as long as teamwork is tangential it's ok, in your book, I suppose).
Some things transcend Left and Right.
How you managed to go via 'coercion', 'politbureau' and 'collectivism', in response to my post, is bewildering.
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYawwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, possibly got it from the first post in the thread:
How you managed to go via 'coercion', 'politbureau' and 'collectivism', in response to my post, is bewildering.
"The exercise through public participation of our obligations to the body of the citizenry."
The word "obligation" and who you are obligated to, is what distinguishes collectivism from individualism, this Ralston fellow is trying to hi-jack the word individualism the way the words 'free', 'freedom','liberal' and 'rights' have been hi-jacked by the collectivists already.
Edit: I don't have a problem with the word "tangential" either, it is an important distinction. That an individuals primary concern in a value for value exchange is that they themselves are receiving value, that the other person receives value is tangential, that's their business. Nice word, might try it more often myself.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaI posted the Ralston Saul quote to see if it would stimulate debate. As for my own definition of "individualism" (posted on this thread), I don't see how it is collectivist at all. I think it is compatible with your world view every bit as much those with a world view that embraces social responsibility. Of course, it would help if you'd offer your own definition.
Yawwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, possibly got it from the first post in the thread: "The exercise through public participation of our obligations to the body of the citizenry."
17 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFInteresting. Good post. Just some thinking “out loud” in response, especially with regard to that word “context”—
Yawn. You are like a broken record! Is your post supposed to be a response to mine?
[b]...politbureau ...Collectivism... society demands the individual forget his own survival and prosperity... sacrifice for the collective... coerced cooperation ... disregard to the individual goals and desires...
You seem obsessed. I wasn't in any way whatsoev nd 'collectivism', in response to my post, is bewildering.[/b]
To speak of a “contextualized individualism”, though perhaps redundant (as you point out that the individual can only be identified, even self-identified, in context), at least makes sense; to speak of some kind of “de-contextualized individualism” would be an absurdity.
Someone who claims individualism as a moral/philosophical principle, cannot make that claim simply for him/herself without slipping into some kind of solipsism (not necessarily ontological solipsism). Such a claim must include the “other”—and even an advocacy for the “other”, as individual—if it is not to be wholly solipsistic. Once again, it is contextualized.
Recognition of such context is not just philosophical; it plays out at the everyday existential level. If I view you as an individual in the same way that I so view myself, then that very recognition leads to what Buber called an I-Thou—as opposed to an I-It—relation. And this holds for any number of “thous”—at least any and all that I view as part of the existential context in which I live out my life. And that context can be very large (essentially global: i.e., entail all other “thous” in the world), even if local context/proximity captures most of my attention compared to larger circles in the global context.
On the other side, any kind of “collectivism” that sets itself up as “I-” (in Buber’s hyphenated terms), and all individual members as “-Its”—well, that’s absurd as well. Neither the abstraction, "the collective”, nor its (whatever) institutional form, is an “I”. To give “the collective” that kind of identity is as absurd as a “de-contextualized” individual. The “collective” is defined (“contextualized” ) by who it includes, in what roles, etc..
In terms of everyday existential intercourse, that I-Thou contextualization may simply be the most generally (and long-term) efficient (as well as humane) context within which to carry out our human affairs. Both a de-contextualized individualism and an abstracted collectivism are absurdities. Carrying on my affairs in the context of an “I-It” solipsism may be insane as well as (self-and-other-) destructive. Simple pragmatism, if nothing else, may commend that I-Thou contextualization, with an ongoing review of how local and global contexts relate to one another.
[Don’t know just why your post reminded me of Buber: now I’m going to have to re-read him…]
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesdSo, would you say that FMF is an "i-IT", a "Thou-i" or simply a What's-it- Whose-it? Please clarify.
Interesting. Good post. Just some thinking “out loud” in response, especially with regard to that word “context”—
To speak of a “contextualized individualism”, though perhaps redundant (as you point out that the individual can only be identified, even self-identified, in context), at least makes sense; to speak of some kind of “de-contextualized ...[text shortened]...
[Don’t know just why your post reminded me of Buber: now I’m going to have to re-read him…]
GRANNY.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFI defined individualism as I see it. After your own "weasel words" you then contend that there isn't any difference in our positions.
Yawn. You are like a broken record! Is your post supposed to be a response to mine?
[b]...politbureau ...Collectivism... society demands the individual forget his own survival and prosperity... sacrifice for the collective... coerced cooperation ... disregard to the individual goals and desires...
You seem obsessed. I wasn't in any way whatsoev ...[text shortened]... nd 'collectivism', in response to my post, is bewildering.[/b]
Priorities and morality are the differences.
Individualism must be primary. Human history tells us so. Once a society is formed, it is almost axiomatic that the leaders attempt to make the society primary and the individual secondary. That is true whether the leader is a tribal chieftan, a King or an emperor. Power, and wealth have always stemmed from this model for the government, whereas under libertarian models with individualism primary, individual men are at liberty to utilize their strengths and talents most completely, which in the end benefits all. In fact to whatever extend socialism is able to succeed, it is based on a high level of individualism and capitalism.
Yes individualism may be manifest by participation. If that participation is in pursuit of individual goals and objectives without coersion, that is true individualism. If "participation" is required as a condition of societal approval, membership, or citizenship, it is usually less than enthusiastic.
The Plymouth colony in Massachusetts was typical as in its first season of collectivism, it failed to produce enough food. Subsequently, the governor parceled land to individuals who could trade and profit from extra effort and efficiency, resulting in greatly improved productivity.
Under individualism, the Rhodesias were the breadbasket of Africa, but under the tyranny of collectivism, the same land can't feed Zimbabwe never mind export food.
Under collectivism, the Soviet Union could not grow wheat enough to feed itself, and produced little oil. With the infusion of capitalism and motives of profit, Russian and some of the satelite republics are becoming leaders in oil production.
The amount of real individualism permitted largely determines the living standards of the people. It isn't frivolously or meaninglessly that I differentiate between real individualism and what you would like to pass off as individualism.
26 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaIn the world of sweatshops, sovereignty is determined by wealth. The more money you have, the more "rights" you have. On the employers' side, I don't see where the "individual" comes into it - Adidas is not an individual, Nike is not an "individual", and yet you champion the corporations' right to pay as little as they can, while saying "sovereignty of the individual is paramount". Meanwhile the employees (unable to act collectively thanks to government gangsterism as requested by the IMF and WB) are screwed with infrahuman wages because, ironically, the 'paramount sovereignty of the individual' - a mockery, and yet a convenient one for supporters of WajomaWorld, is enforced by the jackboot. Which of course you abhor, no? The only domain that "individuals" in WajomaWorld exercise sovereignty over, in the face of predatory corporations, is over their own poverty and insecurity despite working a 60 hour week.
The sovereignty of the individual is paramount.
26 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFDon't work in a "sweatshop".
In the world of sweatshops, sovereignty is determined by wealth. The more money you have, the more "rights" you have. On the employers' side, I don't see where the "individual" comes into it - Adidas is not an individual, Nike is not an "individual", and yet you champion the corporations' right to pay as little as they can, while saying "sovereignty of the indiv ...[text shortened]... rations, is over their own poverty and insecurity despite working a 60 hour week.
26 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFI didn't see any question. You asked for a definition of individualism.
Your glibness leaves the questions I raised about "The sovereignty of the individual is paramount" unanswered.
Sorry I couldn't give: Indidualism is where the sovereignty of the individual is paramount and Wajoma owes FMF a job position with x conditions.
26 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaWhat aspect of 'Multinational Corporation + local National Government' can be described as an "individual" (whose "sovereignty is paramount", or so you say) for the purposes of settling on a 'mutually beneficial' contract for two "individuals"?
I didn't see any question. You asked for a definition of individualism.
Sorry I couldn't give: Indidualism is where the sovereignty of the individual is paramount and Wajoma owes FMF a job position with x conditions.
26 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFIs the multinational corporation forcing individuals into contracts?
What aspect of 'Multinational Corporation + local National Government' can be described as an "individual" (whose "sovereignty is paramount", or so you say) for the purposes of settling on a 'mutually beneficial' contract for two "individuals"?
Is the National Government forcing individuals into contracts?