Western philosophy: Individualistic

[crossfire]

True. Tribalism is a form of collectivism. Although, not all forms of collectivism are tribalism.

Indeed. You can observe egregores form and dissipate at sporting events, for example.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

How do we delineate "Western" and "Eastern" philosophy? Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Engels, and Marx were all from Western countries, but their views on individualism and collectivism are almost diametrically opposed.

Marx was a Western philosopher with collectivistic philosophies.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Marx was a Western philosopher with collectivistic philosophies.

Exactly. I think "Western" and "Eastern" are very broad umbrella terms that encompass a range of individualist and collectivist philosophies, so almost any general answer may not be accurate.

 

[Whateverist]

However this idea of a collective understanding is not very realistic. That a individual can some how comprehend the whole of humanity as a monolith seems a bit ego-eccentric. I certainly wouldn't assume to know what is best for you. You have your own mind and own way of doing things.

In so far as the pursuit of philosophy is about understanding the world, ourselves and what we are doing here I think an understanding of ourselves as part of a collective is unavoidable. Of course that is different than an understanding that we adopt whole cloth from the collective. We are both collective and individual so an adequate understanding must encompass both.

More importantly a satisfactory understanding must be something we ultimately grasp as a gestalt directly and that demands intuition or receptive understanding. That is where many Eastern traditions have more to offer. If our ‘understanding’ is nothing more than a series of verbal bullet points, our understanding will remain fragmented - fixated on the finger pointing to the moon rather than the moon itself. An adequate wisdom tradition should make clear that the greatest understanding must go deeper than denotative thinking to receptive realization while being able to as acknowledge denotative thoughts which are more or less perceptive.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Exactly. I think "Western" and "Eastern" are very broad umbrella terms that encompass a range of individualist and collectivist philosophies, so almost any general answer may not be accurate.

Still, I distinguished the two because I personally considered Eastern philosophies to be less individalistic in nature, in general. In a way, to ask the question so broadly as to incllude them, would probably make people scratch their head at my question and say "Aren't there about an equal amount of individualistic and collectivistic?"

 

[crossfire]

Exactly. I think "Western" and "Eastern" are very broad umbrella terms that encompass a range of individualist and collectivist philosophies, so almost any general answer may not be accurate.

How about "pastoral cultural philosophy," "agricultural cultural philosophy," and "hunter-gatherer cultural philosophy?" I find this a useful categorization. Your mileage may vary.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I do admit that there was a more specific line of reason behind my broad question....

I've covered this a bit before, but sometimes I regret the fact that I find Existentialism to not have much of a solution to the collectivistic despite liking pretty much everything else that I have heard about it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

How about "pastoral cultural philosophy," "agricultural cultural philosophy," and "hunter-gatherer cultural philosophy?" I find this a useful categorization. Your mileage may vary.

I do think narrowing down the "Western" and "Eastern" umbrellas into categories would be useful, although I'm not sure how to categorize the subsets of each. I would have to give that more thought.

 

[PureX]

The Chinese could make flash powder a thousand years before Europeans learned to make it. And in all those years all the Chinese ever did with it was make fireworks for celebrations. While the instant the Europeans got hold of it, they weaponized it and set out to conquer each other, and the world with it.

This is the fundamental problem with individualized thinking: it pits us all against each other. Everyone else becomes the impediments to our desires. Obstacles that have to be either subjugated or removed. Living becomes an battleground that destroys many of us needlessly. We could have simply cooperated with each other and achieved the same basic goals for most everyone without all the suffering and destruction.

But fear inspires more fear, and violence begets more violence, and soon we can no longer even see another way.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The Chinese could make flash powder a thousand years before Europeans learned to make it. And in all those years all the Chinese ever did with it was make fireworks for celebrations. While the instant the Europeans got hold of it, they weaponized it and set out to conquer each other, and the world with it.

This is the fundamental problem with individualized thinking: it pits us all against each other. Everyone else becomes the impediments to our desires. Obstacles that have to be either subjugated or removed. Living becomes an battleground that destroys many of us needlessly. We could have simply cooperated with each other and achieved the same basic goals for most everyone without all the suffering and destruction.

But fear inspires more fear, and violence begets more violence, and soon we can no longer even see another way.

If you are familiar with Existentialism, would you say that it too is prone to overly individualistic thinking?

 

[Stevicus]

How do we delineate "Western" and "Eastern" philosophy? Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Engels, and Marx were all from Western countries, but their views on individualism and collectivism are almost diametrically opposed.

That's a good point. I think human society largely has been collectivist in its scope, although the rise of machines and industrialism has made it less necessary to depend directly on humans as much as we did in the past. Plus, in the West, the idea of individual exploration and "rugged individuals" settling on the frontier - without much contact with the collective - has become part of the cultural mythos.

 

[exchemist]

Would you say that some of Western philosophy promotes the view you mentioned?

I don't think it is philosophy as such that promotes that view, no. But I do think there is a fair amount of what passes for political philosophy, especially in the USA at the moment, that does this. The writings of Ayn Rand would be an example.

 

[Quintessence]

Do you, like myself, consider non-Eastern philosophy to be prone to being a bit too individualistic in general, or at least not collectivistic?

Modern Western philosophy doesn't have this problem as much as its forerunners of a century or few ago. I think it was around the 70s that environmental philosophy emerged as a strong counter to the traditionally individualistic considerations of Western paradigms. Environmental philosophy is inherently more holistic, because it gives due consideration to the non-human world, something that Western philosophy has failed to do for most of its history. Though in fairness, even some elements of environmental philosophy have hangovers of the anthropocentric, individualistic way of thinking that is so pervasive in Western cultures.

Whether or not we have "too much" of something is a judgement call that depends on one's personal values and preferences. I'm less convinced that these abstract ideas are the problem than how they specifically manifest in practice, which is not homogenous. That is, desirable and undesirable outcomes can flow from either abstraction depending on their taken meaning. All things bear strengths and weaknesses in equal measure.

If so, what challenges does that pose?

When the abstract idea of "individualism" manifests in ways that disregard one's dependence upon "other" that's a problem.

When the abstract idea of "collectivism" manifests in ways that disregard one's autonomy from "other" that's a problem.

Actors in this reality are a measure of both. Threads woven into a tapestry. If a thread disregards its dependence upon the weave, it risks the weave collapsing and itself along with it. Yet if the weave does not permit the individual threads to have their own colors and textures, it risks stagnation and the inability to adapt to change.

 

[PureX]

If you are familiar with Existentialism, would you say that it too is prone to overly individualistic thinking?

We are all free to think as we choose to think. No one can stop or control that. But some ways of thinking produce better results when acted upon than others. What we're really talking about are two different ethical priorities: serving the well-being of the individual first, or serving the well-being of the collective first. We can serve both, but often not equally and simultaneously. So we must prioritize.

Logic clearly dictates that we put the collective first. But our emotions clearly dictate that we put our individual needs and desires first. We can argue for the former, logically, but our arguments will have little effect on the latter. Thus we are a species in terminal crises with ourselves.

 

[crossfire]

The Chinese could make flash powder a thousand years before Europeans learned to make it. And in all those years all the Chinese ever did with it was make fireworks for celebrations. While the instant the Europeans got hold of it, they weaponized it and set out to conquer each other, and the world with it.

This is the fundamental problem with individualized thinking: it pits us all against each other. Everyone else becomes the impediments to our desires. Obstacles that have to be either subjugated or removed. Living becomes an battleground that destroys many of us needlessly. We could have simply cooperated with each other and achieved the same basic goals for most everyone without all the suffering and destruction.

But fear inspires more fear, and violence begets more violence, and soon we can no longer even see another way.

Last time I checked, warfare was a collectivist thing, no? (Us vs them.)

 

[PureX]

Last time I checked, warfare was a collectivist thing, no? (Us vs them.)

I don't know where you checked. But it's never a collective desire. No one wants it but the "alphas". Everyone else gets pushed or coerced into it against their will.

 

[wellwisher]

Do you, like myself, consider non-Eastern philosophy to be prone to being a bit too individualistic in general, or at least not collectivistic?

If so, what challenges does that pose?

America; West, was a unique laboratory. It was a place of wide open land, with lots of natural resources. Most of the rest of the world was more crowded with competition for resources. This latter require more group cooperation in terms of gathering resources, war and defense. America, by being open and free, and different, needed a different type of attitude; explorers. This is easier to do in small packs of rugged and self reliant people living off the land.

If you were heading west in 1870, you would not take the entire village, since it was not an easy journey. There were all types of hazards that would concentrate down the village to small percent of rugged and self reliant. Besides Indians protecting their land and bandits, you had unseen natural disasters like tornados, floods, huge mountain to cross, all with old world people not prepared for the hardship. A totally different way of life was needed, than require in the more crowded old world.

Americas leads in innovation since it is used to leaving the established and pioneering new frontiers. The new frontiers are not for all ,since there is not clear traditional path for group and consensus thinking.

 

[crossfire]

I don't know where you checked. But it's never a collective desire. No one wants it but the "alphas". Everyone else gets pushed or coerced into it against their will.

Rally cry? (or rallying cry) Collectivism works by overcoming an individual's will! (let not my will be done, but Thy will be done)

 

[PureX]

Rally cry? (or rallying cry) Collectivism works by overcoming an individual's will! (let not my will be done, but Thy will be done)

... for the good of the collective. That's collectivism. War is never for the good of the collective. Neither is following the will of the 'alphas'. Even defensive wars are not good for the collective; just necessary for it's survival.

Also, what's good for the collective is not automatically bad for the individual. In fact, it's usually what's best for most. But the collective needs to come first. This is where we are currently failing.

 

[Jimmy]

Unfortunately there’s selfish people all over the world imo