Yes, there is such a thing as society. If you want to make a change to society, make that change within yourself that you could like to see reflected in society, and act on it. Start the transforming fire within yourself and let it spread.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Poll: "no such thing as society"
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
You’ve been reading Gandhi!
Buddha
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
*sigh* Don't you know you won't be getting far in life without saying is?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That is all fair and well, except for us, who have no good functioning family, as family to us is harmful.
Is that saying attributed to the Buddha? I know that Mahatma Gandhi said it… Always thought it was “his”.
More than that, there has been an effort (for lack of the word I want… just woke up) in the modern age, since the Industrial Revolution, to redefine “the family” as merely the immediate household (the “nuclear family”), to downplay the “extended family”, and to re-focus the affections of people in society from the (newly emphasized nuclear) family to the state. This is why symbolism and regalia (“heraldry” and such) pertaining to the family no longer has legal protection, while at the same time that pertaining to the state has been re-emphasized greatly. That symbolic effort has been paired, at least in America, with a type of “cultural re-mythologizing” (there is a great book dealing with that called “The Mystic Chords of Memory”, if you can find it). I’m not sure how volitional such apparent trends are, or what the reason for them might be, other than a mere strengthening for the state vis-a-vis the common man.
Last edited:
I am in that boat as well, along with the greater part of American society, I would think. There have always been people for whom marriage and family are a mistake, and there have always been dysfunctional families, but the incidence of that has seemed to increase over time. As the family has been de-emphasized in modern society, dysfunction and entropy, aided by the normal proclivities of human nature, have ravaged the family in the modern age.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Not according to the historical analysis of it, that I have seen referenced. Before it was just hidden and/or accepted as how it was.
I think that Margaret Thatcher made that statement ("There's no such thing as society.") in order to justify her proposed reduction of social services. Thatcher wanted to introduce compulsory charges for public schooling, as well as do away with Britain's National Health Service.
"Margaret Thatcher and her chancellor Sir Geoffrey Howe were behind a politically toxic plan in 1982 to dismantle the welfare state, newly released Downing Street documents show. She later attempted to distance herself from the plans after what was described as a 'riot' in her cabinet.
"The proposals considered by her cabinet included compulsory charges for schooling and a massive scaling back of other public services. 'This would of course mean the end of the National Health Service,' declared a confidential cabinet memorandum by the Central Policy Review Staff in September 1982, released by the National Archives on Friday under the 30-year rule.
"Nigel Lawson, then the energy secretary, said the report by the official thinktank on long-term public spending options caused 'the nearest thing to a cabinet riot in the history of the Thatcher administration'."
Link to quoted article
Here in the U.S., healthcare for our citizens is a major concern that has yet to be resolved. I don't think that claiming "there is no society" is an acceptable defense (or excuse) either for proposing to eliminate what healthcare one's nation already has, or for failing to address the healthcare concerns in nations that are lacking.
"Margaret Thatcher and her chancellor Sir Geoffrey Howe were behind a politically toxic plan in 1982 to dismantle the welfare state, newly released Downing Street documents show. She later attempted to distance herself from the plans after what was described as a 'riot' in her cabinet.
"The proposals considered by her cabinet included compulsory charges for schooling and a massive scaling back of other public services. 'This would of course mean the end of the National Health Service,' declared a confidential cabinet memorandum by the Central Policy Review Staff in September 1982, released by the National Archives on Friday under the 30-year rule.
"Nigel Lawson, then the energy secretary, said the report by the official thinktank on long-term public spending options caused 'the nearest thing to a cabinet riot in the history of the Thatcher administration'."
Link to quoted article
Here in the U.S., healthcare for our citizens is a major concern that has yet to be resolved. I don't think that claiming "there is no society" is an acceptable defense (or excuse) either for proposing to eliminate what healthcare one's nation already has, or for failing to address the healthcare concerns in nations that are lacking.
Last edited:
Is that so....
This is the one topic that I definitely agree with progressives on. The concept of “society” be damned…if we can’t care for our fellow men in their most basic ailments, then what can we do that is worth anything? So long as it is paid for by taxation in an equitable manner, and is coupled with a scaling back of government in other, less necessary areas, then I am all for universal health care.
Haha…you agree with “Slick Willie”, then!
That Depends On What The Meaning Of "Is" Is
The Atlantic covers news, politics, culture, technology, health, and more, through its articles, podcasts, videos, and flagship magazine.
Last edited:
I haven't been reading Mahatma Gandhi at all.
Then, either Gandhi filched it or I read a misattribution.
Yes, right…but what indicates our concept of “society” as an abstraction is the fact that, though the people living in it change over time (through north, death, migration, etc.), any given society is yet viewed as being the same society. If a society were merely a group of specific people, when there was a single birth or death we would have to view it as a different society.
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
Nothing in the definition states "specific" group
Turning inward and making changes is a common strategy that goes far back into antiquity.