Does the individual exist separate from society?

[Laika]

Exaustion of a narrative when faced with implacable, relentless facts?

As for the OP, have you heard of Anatta, @Laika?

The individual as such may or may not exist, but has ultimately very little significance.

But perhaps for that very reason there is a lot of myth of the individual running around and being lent a lot of prestige. In politics that manifests as populism (if you will forgive me for using that word). In history, as the Great Man Theory.

You may find it useful to learn some Anthropology. As areas of knowledge go, it is as resilient against the myth of the individual as politics is bound to promote that same myth.

I've heard of Anatta (or Non-self) in Buddhism but it is not something I've learned much about. So I will certainly look in to it. Thanks.

 

[Heyo]

It may seem unrelated but bear with me and have a think.

Can you solve the Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia ?

 

[Laika]

It may seem unrelated but bear with me and have a think.

Can you solve the Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia ?

I did study economics for a year, but I dropped out partly because I disagreed with the idea of economic "rationality" (as maximising self-interest) for understanding human behaviour.

I am the kind of person who doesn't see going to jail as a cost if I'm doing it for the right reasons. My priorities are very screwed up.

 

[Heyo]

I did study economics for a year, but I dropped out partly because I disagreed with the idea of economic "rationality" (as maximising self-interest) for understanding human behaviour.

I am the kind of person who doesn't see going to jail as a cost if I'm doing it for the right reasons. My priorities are very screwed up.

So you'd cooperate (with your buddy in crime) and risk 3 years if he rats you out?
What exactly is your rational?

 

[Laika]

So you'd cooperate (with your buddy in crime) and risk 3 years if he rats you out?
What exactly is your rational?

It's not so much co-operate as "turn myself in".

If I were going to break the law for the "right reasons" and I believed I had a moral obligation to do so, I'd accept being fully accountable to the community for them to decide if I am wrong (as long as the courts are reasonably fair). So I'd be prepared to tell the truth and confess so other people can hold me accountable for my crimes.

If you're only going to break the law because you think you can get away with it, it proves you're basically a coward, have no self-respect and treat yourself as worthless. If you have any self-respect and intelligence you should only be prepared to break the law even if you get caught.

You can't control or know everything, so you don't know the outcome of your decisions. Assume the worst outcome you can think of and start from there. If it's not worth it, don't do it. So if you are going to break the law, make sure you're doing it for a reason that's actually worth going to jail for.

So, I could be a law abiding citizens or a criminal mastermind. It depends on my mood. It's a fun boundary to live on.

 

[crossfire]

If truth comes from objective reality, truth would be shared and is arguably social and not individual. So "nothing" at a guess. Major social changes involve swapping one herd for another.

But the interesting (and alarming) stuff happens when you think about if parroting about how individual we are is simply another form of conformity and herd thinking. Our individualism is just another herd morality based on what we think is "normal" as a set of beliefs inherited from our ancestors and not necessarily what is actually true. We just believe we are individuals because that's what we're told.

Sure there can certainly be a cultural element to individualism. One tradition my family holds to is: All children shall be raised to have their own mind and think for themselves. Another one is in teaching children that it is their duty to thoughtfully and respectfully question authority, as this safeguards against corruption and helps society to evolve for the better.

So does society come before and take precedence over the individual or does the individual take precedence over society?

The individual takes precidence within the realm of the individual, and collectives (including corporations) shall not trample on individual rights. (Collateral damage is not justified.)

If they aren't separate the individual person cannot be an individual morally speaking surely?

Anyone who has difficulty discerning personal boundaries might want to check themselves for narcissicism. (Just sayin'.)

 

[Heyo]

It's not so much co-operate as "turn myself in".

That's a very commendable world view but it doesn't address the abstract of the prisoners dilemma, just the specific case. (And for you it wouldn't even be a dilemma.)

 

[Woberts]

Of course it doesn't exist. To think otherwise is both absurd and dangerous.

 

[syo]

As Thatcher once said, "there is no such thing as society"

LOL

 

[Straw Dog]

Here's a puzzle I'm mulling over. As Thatcher once said, "there is no such thing as society". I was wondering if you could argue the reverse and that "there is no such thing as the individual" and only society (or the state as the embodiment of society) is real.

According to Marxist materialism everything in the consciousness of an individual is a reflection of the objective material world. Individual consciousness is only a "superstructure" on the basis of society and the social organisation of production. So society is primary and the individual is secondary and dependent on the former.

Putting it bluntly, everything in my consciousness from taste in food, music or art, my dreams when I sleep or day dreams when I am awake, my sexual fantasies and my political, religious and philosophical ideas have their origins in society and not from my own brain/mind. If I were crazy and suffering from hallucinations or delusions they remain social in character (i.e. If I think I'm napoleons or Jesus, I got the ideas of Jesus and napoleon from other people).

Free thought and free will cannot be said to exist (in a conventional sense) because neither thought nor will are independent of objective reality. Both thought and will are only free to the extent that we have "freedom of action" based on our knowledge of what is real and what is possible based on our finite powers within reality.

Can we therefore claim that the individual "exists" as an entity separate from society? What would it mean?

Feel free to challenge any of the points here as I am trying to figure out how to reason this out.

We are partially influenced by society. We’re also influenced by our genes. We’re also influenced by our personal subjective experiences. Everything has a reason.

I am who I am because of who I was.