Poll: "no such thing as society"

[mikkel_the_dane]

These things don't exist, yet are so recognizable.
If one spends too much time gazing at one's navel,
one begins to confuse reality with lint.

Well, lint is not in reality, so you are not even reading this. In effect for these debates you are so objective that you miss of some normal parts of your brain. That is how special you are.
Stop playing that game with me, because we are just comparing your lint with mine.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no spoon either. Just a spork.

There are too few sporks.
And I'd like my spoons & sporks to have knife edges on the sides.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, lint is not in reality, so you are not even reading this. In effect for these debates you are so objective that you miss of some normal parts of your brain. That is how special you are.
Stop playing that game with me, because we are just comparing your lint with mine.

There is no reality, no reading, no "this", no objective, no normal, no brain, no special, no game, & no you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are too few sporks.
And I'd like my spoons & sporks to have knife edges on the sides.

Stop doing that. It is nothing but navel lint. Stay in objective reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

Stop doing that. It is nothing but navel lint. Stay in objective reality.

Your post modern subjectification of objectification or reality's
underlying metaphysical underpinnings is brazenly opaque.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no reality, no reading, no "this", no objective, no normal, no brain, no special, no game, & no you.

Well there is. We just do some parts differently. That is all. You are just "bad" at some cases of limited relativism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well there is.

There is no "is".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your post modern subjectification of objectification or reality's
underlying metaphysical underpinnings is brazenly opaque.

Well, the problem is that nobody have never been able to do "I know something" simpler than that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no "is".

Well, yes. It is all a hallucination in your mind. And there is nothing than your mind as your mind.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, yes. It is all a hallucination in your mind. And there is nothing than your mind as your mind.

No means no after 1990.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Margaret Thatcher was a quintessential example of neoliberalism writ large. For some neoliberals, the importance of social cooperation, collective contribution and assistance, and regulation either doesn't exist or is secondary to some idealistic, self-centered notion of "personal responsibility" and "individualism," as if people couldn't be responsible while also upholding the social contract and assisting those in need.

She's dead wrong about her characterization of society, of course. I also find it quite ironic that she said that while supporting British nationalism. If there's no such thing as a society, what is a nationalist being loyal to? The individuals and families within the borders of their country?

 

[Zwing]

A family is a kind of social group

Well…sure, but that depends on what you mean by “family”. A lineage is more than that, it has a physical/genetic etiology…a firm basis in reality. Granted, though, the term “family” today, referring to the so-called “nuclear family” rather than the “clan”, with all the divorce and remarriage in our societies, and also the prevalence of adoption, is really no more than a descriptor for a social group.

As for societies, “society” is an abstraction, both actually and linguistically. In the modern west, “societies” are defined by “bodies of law” and “governments”, both of which are abstractions themselves (we live largely in an abstract world). Abstractions are things that have only conditional existence. They exist in the mind, but are not concrete things in nature. This is why people can join and leave a given society in large numbers, and yet “the society” remains the same with a different membership. At their core, abstractions are not real things…they are conceptual things, so Thatcher was right in a manner of speaking.

 

[Yerda]

At their core, abstractions are not real things…they are conceptual things, so Thatcher was right in a manner of speaking.

True. Almost everything that matters isn't real in this sense. It would be a weird thing to say, for instance, people expect support within a marriage but marriages aren't real, only men and women are real.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Margaret Thatcher famously said "there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families"

Was she right or was she wrong?

And why????

This is what I think:

I don't think you can have "individual men and women" without a "society"

As humans are social beings

I believe that human beings are to societies as honey bees are to honey bee colonies

"there is no such thing as honey bee colonies. There are only individual honey bees"

This is laughable and nonsensical

It denies reality

Also, she contradicts herself

Families are a unit of social organisation

A family is a kind of social group

The social and the individual are mutually constitutive, to understand humanity and individual humans you need to consider both

It makes no sense to deny either the social or the individual

Family comes first. Society could care less about ones family.

That's how I see it.

I like Margaret. Tough as nails. RIP

 

[Zwing]

True. Almost everything that matters isn't real in this sense. It would be a weird thing to say, for instance, people expect support within a marriage but marriages aren't real, only men and women are real.

I partially agree. One needs to know where to draw the line with abstract entities, such as "government" and "the state". We have been witness to a centuries-long effort, now, of the nation-state trying to replace the family (read "lineage") as the primary focus of people's affections, and of the state assuming functions which were once the province of the family. This is what all the "patriotic" hoopla is all about, and it is part of an agenda. The end point of this agenda will be the state as arbiter of all things vis-a-vis the individual from the cradle to the grave, and I oppose that vehemently. The impersonal state should not be the primary solver of a majority of people’s personal problems. The focus of the anbove-noted effort by the state quickly falls apart when subjected to close inspection and detailed thought.

As for "marriage", it is bonded by and finds real expression in the very real production of offspring, and the continuation of a genetic lineage. In my opinion, abstractions "matter" only as much as their real bases or expressions matter. A marriage "matters" because the real family thus created matters, and for no other reason. I suspect (and this is just me thinking out loud) that people who place their marriage above their actual families usually end up divorced in our day of easy “no fault” divorce, and that therefore, this is why our western societies are experiencing a certain type of societal and ideological decay (we can already see that the very concept of “the family” has decayed in manifold ways). To my mind, a marriage should be considered the proper servant of the family (as it was in the days of our forefathers), and not vice-versa.

 

[syo]

Margaret Thatcher famously said "there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families"

 

[Revoltingest]

Margaret Thatcher famously said "there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families"

Was she right or was she wrong?

And why????

This is what I think:

I don't think you can have "individual men and women" without a "society"

As humans are social beings

I believe that human beings are to societies as honey bees are to honey bee colonies

"there is no such thing as honey bee colonies. There are only individual honey bees"

This is laughable and nonsensical

It denies reality

Also, she contradicts herself

Families are a unit of social organisation

A family is a kind of social group

The social and the individual are mutually constitutive, to understand humanity and individual humans you need to consider both

It makes no sense to deny either the social or the individual

Let's not hastily presume that she meant this literally.
I suspect that she said it to emphasize that individuals
are diverse, & that they should be seen that way...not
just as a monolithic society.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Let's not hastily presume that she meant this literally.
I suspect that she said it to emphasize that individuals
are diverse, & that they should be seen that way...not
just as a monolithic society.

Well, if that's what she meant, she could have just said that...

 

[Yerda]

I partially agree. One needs to know where to draw the line with abstract entities, such as "government" and "the state". We have been witness to a centuries-long effort, now, of the nation-state trying to replace the family (read "lineage") as the primary focus of people's affections, and of the state assuming functions which were once the province of the family. This is what all the "patriotic" hoopla is all about, and it is part of an agenda. The end point of this agenda will be the state as arbiter of all things vis-a-vis the individual from the cradle to the grave, and I oppose that vehemently. The impersonal state should not be the primary solver of a majority of people’s personal problems. The focus of the anbove-noted effort by the state quickly falls apart when subjected to close inspection and detailed thought.

As for "marriage", it is bonded by and finds real expression in the very real production of offspring, and the continuation of a genetic lineage. In my opinion, abstractions "matter" only as much as their real bases or expressions matter. A marriage "matters" because the real family thus created matters, and for no other reason. I suspect (and this is just me thinking out loud) that people who place their marriage above their actual families usually end up divorced in our day of easy “no fault” divorce, and that therefore, this is why our western societies are experiencing a certain type of societal and ideological decay (we can already see that the very concept of “the family” has decayed in manifold ways). To my mind, a marriage should be considered the proper servant of the family (as it was in the days of our forefathers), and not vice-versa.

I don't agree with you here or the line of reasoning you seem to be following but I understand where you're coming from.

Sure, some people want to expand the role of the state, sometimes in an intrusive way. Sometimes led by ideology. Patriotism should go right in the bin as far as I'm concerned. Some others wish to reduce the state, sometime rightly so, imo. Sometimes led by ideology. There is another huge and powerful abstraction at play here we call "the market" which also has a centuries long effect on the role of the family. It's worth remembering that the family is also just an idea. A story. One that you correctly note is changing.

Generally I'm of the opinion that human welfare should be among our highest priorities. And the state is often equipped to positively affect human welfare with greater reach and efficiency that any other institution. One look at the financial destruction occuring amongst families in the USA when a member afflicted with a life threatening illness should be enough to tell us that if we value human welfare then the family can't be left alone to deal with things like this. Maybe we can manage this without the state but I'm unaware of any good examples. There are many more examples like this where the state has to step in because families can't shoulder all burdens without breaking.

I'd also like to point out that marriage is still a marriage without offspring. For me, marriage is still marriage without ceremony, state recognition and legal documents but this is another discussion. Marriage is something humans do in pairs (typically) and matters because it gives us meaning and a foundation to share our love in the way that often makes the most sense to us. If we seek to dissolve that bond then I can't see how it benefits anyone to restrict this. I would prefer 100% of marriages ended in divorce to people being pressured to remain in situations causing them pain and suffering.

 

[Zwing]

For me, marriage is still marriage without ceremony…

I’m not sure that I can agree, since ultimately, a marriage is not only an agreement (a “contract”, really) between two people, but rather an agreement involving everybody in one’s society. Marriage is a social institution, not a private one. The people whom you live among have a natural interest, and so a stake, in the stability of your marriage, since a marriage, whether with children or not, forms a family, and the family is the basis for social stability. The loss of that notion is one of the major problems vexing western societies today, and it is the result of modern individualism, which involves an increasing focus upon the individual, its perceived prerogatives and its “happiness”.

The most disturbing social shift to me is the notion that the individual as a member of a family is somehow less important or of less moment in contrast to the individual as a member of society. One manifestation of this is Hillary Clinton’s famous assertion that “It takes a village to raise a child.” This is a foolish notion. The problem with that idea is that a child holds a natural, evolved-in importance to its kin which cannot possibly be matched within the child’s relation to its society. Another manifestation of that notion is the rise of easy “no fault” divorce within our legal system. At one time, divorce of a marriage had to be based upon a showing that there was a “fault” in the marriage which existed when the marriage was contracted, but was not then perceived. That has been undermined as the shift of society has moved from the family to the individual.

In any case, point is that a marriage contracted “without ceremony” seems to be premised by the notion that the marriage is only in the interest of two individuals. I disagree with that premise. The reason that we have weddings and paperwork associated with marriage is so that society at large, in its status as a natural stakeholder in the marriage, can recognize that a marriage has been contracted and a family has been formed.

EDIT: On thinking further about this, I think that I feel the way I do because of an intrinsic anti-individualism within me. I find the individual life to be distressing in its temporality, while the life of the family (in terms of “lineage”) seems to be able to endure in comparison. I began to feel this way shortly after I thought myself out of my Judeo-Christian worldview, wherein it is (baselessly) claimed that we have “souls” which continue in consciousness after our bodily deaths. As the importance of my individual self has waned with respect to the importance to me of my potential lineage, I have now come to view “society” essentially as a collection of families, as opposed to a collection of individuals, and the structure of society as arising from the competition between families across generations, rather than from a competition between individuals. I have always, even when an individualist, viewed life through a competitive lens. However, the loss of my theism caused shifts in my thinking across the spectrum of my belief system.