Western philosophy: Individualistic

[crossfire]

... 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.

In Buddhism we have something called mara, which is collective delusion. Collectivism is not always beneficial and noble. Individual minds are overcome by the collective mara.

 

[Stevicus]

... 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.

I would agree that, most of the time, war isn't good for the collective, although it might depend on the war. The Civil War, for example, although that can be complicated because the States were smaller collectives within the larger collective of the USA as a whole. Though there were other collectives defined as "black" and "white" (among other identities), but on the other hand, there were many who wanted all inhabitants to be part of a singular American collective, where all would be citizens with rights regardless of their race or national origins. Constitutionally, that goal was achieved by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, so one might say that the Civil War benefited the American collective by making it larger and more solidified.

Of course, that's not to say that the wealthy classes didn't grab the lion's share of the spoils and used their political power for their own benefit. Even at the lower levels of the hierarchy, some people were able to go west and take part of the great land grab, about the same time the Europeans were scrambling for Africa. Nationalism is also collectivist, albeit limited in its scope, which favors their own collective over other collectives. Capitalists went along with that because nationalism is an effective motivator and tool to gain recruits, who join up out of patriotism and love of country, while the capitalists collect all the spoils. It's a sweet deal, as long as you're on the winning side.

But, as was the case with WW1, it can leave a bad taste in people's mouths, even those of the victors. The slaughter and atrocities had gone too far, and at least in terms of the health and well-being of the collective as a whole, it had a negative effect on the psychology and self-perception the collective had. It's reflected in culture, policies, and political shifts where we started to question ourselves and what we were doing more and more. Maybe a slow awakening that peaked in the decades following WW2, though we seem to be drifting back into somnambulance in more recent times.

 

[PureX]

In Buddhism we have something called mara, which is collective delusion. Collectivism is not always beneficial and noble. Individual minds are overcome by the collective mara.

But if we were to analyze when that occurs, what we find is individual selfishness being 'collectively' triggered. Mob violence, looting, bloodlust, etc., these are our worst individual inclinations being called up and approved by the mob (the collective of the moment). And these are not for the benefit of collective as a whole. Only for the benefit of selfishness within the individuals, that is poisoning the collective of the moment.

 

[PureX]

I would agree that, most of the time, war isn't good for the collective, although it might depend on the war. The Civil War, for example, although that can be complicated because the States were smaller collectives within the larger collective of the USA as a whole. Though there were other collectives defined as "black" and "white" (among other identities), but on the other hand, there were many who wanted all inhabitants to be part of a singular American collective, where all would be citizens with rights regardless of their race or national origins. Constitutionally, that goal was achieved by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, so one might say that the Civil War benefited the American collective by making it larger and more solidified.

Of course, that's not to say that the wealthy classes didn't grab the lion's share of the spoils and used their political power for their own benefit. Even at the lower levels of the hierarchy, some people were able to go west and take part of the great land grab, about the same time the Europeans were scrambling for Africa. Nationalism is also collectivist, albeit limited in its scope, which favors their own collective over other collectives. Capitalists went along with that because nationalism is an effective motivator and tool to gain recruits, who join up out of patriotism and love of country, while the capitalists collect all the spoils. It's a sweet deal, as long as you're on the winning side.

But, as was the case with WW1, it can leave a bad taste in people's mouths, even those of the victors. The slaughter and atrocities had gone too far, and at least in terms of the health and well-being of the collective as a whole, it had a negative effect on the psychology and self-perception the collective had. It's reflected in culture, policies, and political shifts where we started to question ourselves and what we were doing more and more. Maybe a slow awakening that peaked in the decades following WW2, though we seem to be drifting back into somnambulance in more recent times.

I would say that the factionalism of the civil war was an expression of individual selfishness acting against the well being of the collective. As it very often does. It's a classic example of why it's important that we put the collective, first, and our factional and personal desires, second. Slavery wouldn't even have occurred if the 'collective' had been more inclusive instead of hierarchical and abusive. It was a "collective" in name only. But not in actual practice. And in fact the civil war was fought to correct that (at least to the degree that it was possible at that time).

 

[crossfire]

But if we were to analyze when that occurs, what we find is individual selfishness being 'collectively' triggered. Mob violence, looting, bloodlust, etc., these are our worst individual inclinations being called up and approved by the mob (the collective of the moment). And these are not for the benefit of collective as a whole. Only for the benefit of selfishness within the individuals, that is poisoning the collective of the moment.

Mara is much more than that. It also includes the cultural nomos, which gives us assumptions about reality that are often not true (hence: delusions) but are shielded by scrutiny in that these assumptions are considered true by the collective. "The Patriarchy" is one such mara.
The way to overcome this collective delusion is to withdraw from the collective and its biased assumptions and to examine them for yourself with your individual intellect. While you are withdrawn from the collective, you can also ferret out the poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion you find within your own individual psyche. The collective cannot do this for you--you must do it yourself.

 

[Stevicus]

I would say that the factionalism of the civil war was an expression of individual selfishness acting against the well being of the collective. As it very often does. It's a classic example of why it's important that we put the collective, first, and our factional and personal desires, second. Slavery wouldn't even have occurred if the 'collective' had been more inclusive instead of hierarchical and abusive. It was a "collective" in name only. But not in actual practice. And in fact the civil war was fought to correct that (at least to the degree that it was possible at that time).

True the outcome of the Civil War did lead to some corrections in terms of the lack of inclusiveness in the overall collective. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments addressed that. But then, things started to go awry along those lines. Though on the other hand, the country expanded to quite a degree. Industries, railroads, mines - capitalists were making tons of money and supporting political factions that would be friendly to mutually profitable arrangements.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

No. There are collectivist philosophers in the West, which itself is just more individualist.
I would say perhaps there is too much of an emphasis on the most individualist of Western philosophers, however, as these ones do tend to steal the show and get all the attention.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"I want you for US Army"

I loathe the hive mind.

Don't wanna pee all that you can pee?

 

[The Hammer]

I would say American Culture is self centered, Me focused, non-collectivist.

But Western is not a good moniker (or Eastern). Even "Western" European values vary by country and region.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I would say American Culture is self centered, Me focused, non-collectivist.

But Western is not a good moniker (or Eastern). Even "Western" European values vary by country and region.

I'm okay with things, but honestly, if I could do things over, I'd take a different, more detailed approach to the question. But, then I might have to explain things a page or two, too. I could have actually picked a philosophy and simply asked about it. In this case, I'd go with Existentialism.

But, such a discussion / debate has its own problems, too. It'd limit the number of responses, and at some point, I think we'd just get into a larger discussion of the individual phillsophers within Existentialism. Then the discussion will turn to Camus, which I'd also be okay with, but I consider Camus to be more linked with Absurdism than Existentialism.

 

[PureX]

Mara is much more than that. It also includes the cultural nomos, which gives us assumptions about reality that are often not true (hence: delusions) but are shielded by scrutiny in that these assumptions are considered true by the collective. "The Patriarchy" is one such mara.
The way to overcome this collective delusion is to withdraw from the collective and its biased assumptions and to examine them for yourself with your individual intellect. While you are withdrawn from the collective, you can also ferret out the poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion you find within your own individual psyche. The collective cannot do this for you--you must do it yourself.

Collectives will not always be 'right'. Meaning they will not always see what's best for them. That's true. But when they fail to do so, I think you will find that it's because they allowed what's good for the few (individual selfishness) to overwhelm their vision of what's good for the many. Capitalism, in our culture, would be a good example.

 

[PureX]

True the outcome of the Civil War did lead to some corrections in terms of the lack of inclusiveness in the overall collective. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments addressed that. But then, things started to go awry along those lines. Though on the other hand, the country expanded to quite a degree. Industries, railroads, mines - capitalists were making tons of money and supporting political factions that would be friendly to mutually profitable arrangements.

None of that was all that good for the collective as a whole, however. Capitalists love to cite capitalism for the increased wealth and ease caused by the industrial revolution, when in fact, capitalism was mostly just responsible for the horrors of that era. Industrialism could have been conducted far more fairly and equitably and successfully had we not been so accepting of our own greed.

 

[Stevicus]

None of that was all that good for the collective as a whole, however. Capitalists love to cite capitalism for the increased wealth and ease caused by the industrial revolution, when in fact, capitalism was mostly just responsible for the horrors of that era. Industrialism could have been conducted far more fairly and equitably and successfully had we not been so accepting of our own greed.

I think the collective was defined in terms of America as a whole, and the prevailing view (which still echoes today) is that "what's good for business is good for America" - a philosophy which has driven public policy through most of our history. Another aspect of the Postbellum era was a larger movement encouraging patriotism and national unity, rather than loyalty to individual states which was prevalent prior to the Civil War. The collective whole was defined along those lines, which might have been viewed as a kind of an abstraction.

 

[PureX]

I think the collective was defined in terms of America as a whole, and the prevailing view (which still echoes today) is that "what's good for business is good for America" - a philosophy which has driven public policy through most of our history. Another aspect of the Postbellum era was a larger movement encouraging patriotism and national unity, rather than loyalty to individual states which was prevalent prior to the Civil War. The collective whole was defined along those lines, which might have been viewed as a kind of an abstraction.

Unfortunately, no distinction was being made between 'business' and greed. So no actual notice or consideration was ever given to capitalism as a system and the poisonous competition and greed it engenders. And now here we are; the wealthiest nation on Earth with millions of our people living in poverty, homeless, and dying from drug and alcohol addiction in the streets, right before our eyes, and no one cares. Because everyone is our competitor for survival, now, while the billionaires dance on our graves.

 

[crossfire]

Collectives will not always be 'right'. Meaning they will not always see what's best for them. That's true. But when they fail to do so, I think you will find that it's because they allowed what's good for the few (individual selfishness) to overwhelm their vision of what's good for the many. Capitalism, in our culture, would be a good example.

Is it 'good and right' for collectives to impair the minds of individuals (like a drug?) Individuals can generally choose to imbibe a mind-numbing drug or choose not to. An individual who unscrupulously drugs another individual without their consent is guilty of a crime. What about when a collective impairs an individual's mind? (Yeah, it's a whataboutism, which is often employed by those whose minds are bent towards collectivism.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

I agree with those who desire a balanced existence of individualism and collectivism.

 

[PureX]

Is it 'good and right' for collectives to impair the minds of individuals (like a drug?) Individuals can generally choose to imbibe a mind-numbing drug or choose not to. An individual who unscrupulously drugs another individual without their consent is guilty of a crime. What about when a collective impairs an individual's mind? (Yeah, it's a whataboutism, which is often employed by those whose minds are bent towards collectivism.)

Or in this instance by one who's mind seems bent against it.

How can a human collective "impair an individual's mind", exactly, without doing that individual harm, and thereby doing harm to the individuals within the collective? The whole point of collectivism is to perceive the individuals within the collective as a synergetic whole, and to serve the well-being of the whole, FIRST, before serving the unique individual desires of the individuals within it. This does not mean that the individual desires of the individuals within the collective are disregarded, or denied. It simply means that we put the well-being of the whole collective before the individual desires within it, because they whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It's simply an issue of priority, not of "either/or".

I don't think you are understanding what 'collectivism' is.

"Synergetic" - 1. involving the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents (think people) to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects. A collective of humans can do far more good to and for the individuals among them than the individuals among them can do for and by themselves. Thus, the goals of the collective takes logical precedence over the goals of the individuals within the collective.

This is what our modern individualist culture has not yet grasped, and is paying dearly for it's neglecting.

 

[crossfire]

Or in this instance by one who's mind seems bent against it.

How can a human collective "impair an individual's mind", exactly, without doing that individual harm, and thereby doing harm to the individuals within the collective? The whole point of collectivism is to perceive the individuals within the collective as a synergetic whole, and to serve the well-being of the whole, FIRST, before serving the unique individual desires of the individuals within it. This does not mean that the individual desires of the individuals within the collective are disregarded, or denied. It simply means that we put the well-being of the whole collective before the individual desires within it, because they whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It's simply an issue of priority, not of "either/or".

I don't think you are understanding what 'collectivism' is.

"Synergetic" - 1. involving the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents (think people) to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects. A collective of humans can do far more good to and for the individuals among them than the individuals among them can do for and by themselves. Thus, the goals of the collective takes logical precedence over the goals of the individuals within the collective.

This is what our modern individualist culture has not yet grasped, and is paying dearly for it's neglecting.

Silly me. I was using the philosophical basis of collectivism: the collective is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. (Being the highest good.) Individuals must subordinate and adjust themselves in order to conform to the collective. Damage to individuals as a result of actions of the collective is seen as collateral damage and is justified as being part of the Greater Good.

 

[ajay0]

What you say, plus excessive individualism usually fails to consider the long-term effects of actions. It thinks about *Me*. *Now!*, rather than how what one is doing now will influence 4 generations hence for his neighbors dependents.

I was told that an old Native American adage stated that tribal war chiefs were men, because the men think intensely about themselves and their children, but the clan chiefs were women, because the women think about 7 generations yet to come.

Wow. There is a lot of wisdom in this adage.

Yes, it is true that full-fledged individuality results in anarchy and chaos.

Freedom means responsibility and control of impulses through self-restraint in favor of clear thinking and correct action that leads to harmony and progress.

 

[PureX]

Silly me. I was using the philosophical basis of collectivism: the collective is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. (Being the highest good.) Individuals must subordinate and adjust themselves in order to conform to the collective. Damage to individuals as a result of actions of the collective is seen as collateral damage and is justified as being part of the Greater Good.

Your view is unnecessarily extremist, as would be expected of someone that's biased against it.