Western philosophy: Individualistic

[wellwisher]

The concept of God given rights or human rights common to all, cannot be achieved with collectivism. With collectivism one will be asked to compromise for the herd.

For example, those who believe in Socialism, get upset if people with drive pursuing happiness make too much money. They would prefer put them in a straight jacket with taxes and law. The ideals of freedom gets limited for the needs of the herd. This works in places where things are crowded. But America was wide open so people could spread out.

The self reliant person can become the king of their own castle. They can walk around in their underwear, if that floats their boat. Their pursuit of happiness, can be open ended in their own self reliant abode. Once they open the windows and have to deal with the neighbors, some of which are whiny and busy body, they will need to compromise for the collective. You cannot talk freely, since some are too sensitive and others have a chip on their shoulder, due to the politics of collectivism. Self reliant people make politics obsolete; independent voters.

 

[crossfire]

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.

I'm sorry if you find Encyclopedia Britannica extremist.

Collectivism | Group Dynamics, Social Structure, Ideology

Collectivism, any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual

www.britannica.com

The generally accepted definition is that individuals are subordinated to collectives as collective rights are supreme to any individual rights. I added some of the repercussions from this, examples of which can be found throughout history.

Now, my own personal view is that individual rights must be upheld, otherwise the capacity for evil on the part of a collective intensifies. Consequentially, collectives must be constantly critiqued and held to the upmost standards. Individuals must always recognize the intensified capacity for evil that collectives hold, and strive to keep their individual minds from being overcome by a collective.

 

[vulcanlogician]

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?

As I'm sure someone's already noted, Western Philosophy broaches upon Eastern ideas all the time. Plus, there has been plenty of talk about collectivism in Western philosophy. The "individual" gets discussed a great deal, yes, but so does the collective.

And Eastern philosophy can discuss individualism in a positive light sometimes. The Tao te Ching praises the individual at some times, the collective at others. Importance or praise of individualism isn't absent from Eastern philosophy.

I do think it's a good question to ask whether the importance of the individual is overstated in Western thought. Perhaps it is. But a plenitude of ideas are around (in Western philosophy) to challenge these ambitious statements about the importance of individualism.

 

[PureX]

The generally accepted definition is that individuals are subordinated to collectives as collective rights are supreme to any individual rights.

You are focusing on legalisms (rights), not on the philosophy. And anyway, how are collective rights NOT individual rights? Since the collective is a collective of individuals. How can five people have rights that one person among them doesn't have?

You keep trying to focus on the idea of imposed force as opposed to voluntary prioritization. Logically, the collective will be far more effective at serving the needs of the many than any individual within it. Thus, it is logical that the individuals within it hold supporting and serving the collective above supporting and serving only themselves. This does not mean they are 'forbidden' from serving their own desires by the collective, as you seem to want to assert, but only that the needs of the collective take priority over the desires of the individuals within it. Because the collective will be more effective at serving the individuals within it than any individual within it could be, alone. And because the goal is that all the individuals get their needs and desires met. (Needs first, desires after.)

Selfishness (individual self-service) is not "illegal". It's just not the healthy or logical priority. It is true that some form of enforcement against damaging individual selfishness will have to be imposed by the collective to protect everyone within it from everyone else, but this will be necessary for any society of humans to coexist. And is yet another example of how serving the collective IS serving the individuals within it.

 

[Koldo]

Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, for starters.




We disagree there. I don't consider a collectivistic understanding to be ego-centric. I consider it altruistic.

I disagree with the characterization of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle's philosophy as individualistic. Their political thought placed the collective above the individual.

I attribute the beginning of individualism to John Locke.

 

[Koldo]

The concept of God given rights or human rights common to all, cannot be achieved with collectivism. With collectivism one will be asked to compromise for the herd.

For example, those who believe in Socialism, get upset if people with drive pursuing happiness make too much money. They would prefer put them in a straight jacket with taxes and law. The ideals of freedom gets limited for the needs of the herd. This works in places where things are crowded. But America was wide open so people could spread out.

The self reliant person can become the king of their own castle. They can walk around in their underwear, if that floats their boat. Their pursuit of happiness, can be open ended in their own self reliant abode. Once they open the windows and have to deal with the neighbors, some of which are whiny and busy body, they will need to compromise for the collective. You cannot talk freely, since some are too sensitive and others have a chip on their shoulder, due to the politics of collectivism. Self reliant people make politics obsolete; independent voters.

Self reliant people are people that live all by themselves in the woods (or in places of their own making) without the benefit (and disavantages) of living in a society.

 

[wellwisher]

Self reliant people are people that live all by themselves in the woods (or in places of their own making) without the benefit (and disavantages) of living in a society.

When the US Constitution was written only land owners could vote. The land owners were the most self reliant and resourceful. The Constitution was set up so the most self reliant, would represent the collective, making the collective more understanding of the needs of being self reliant. Back then family and religion was strong, so collectivism would start at home and community and not need Big Government beyond national defense. Provide of the common defense but promote the general welfare. Promote is less money intensive than provide. Promote can be done with good ideas and helpful people doing their jobs; Lewis and Clark.

The young USA was full of open land with plenty of new frontiers to make the dream of self reliance possible for all. One could become a land owner; kings of their own castle. But it would still take people of resolve and will to tame the wild land. These were the spokesmen; voters, in terms of Government policy.

This opportunity and attitude was more unique to the new West, since the East; Europe and Asia had not be open and free land for thousands of years. The crowded nature, of limited land and resources required the economies of scale that collectives could offer.

If you read the US Constitution, all the power was originally given to the individuals, with government the public servant and not the master. Those with collective minds, want to make government the master, taking away the rights of the citizens under the guise of the larger good; their own power grab.

If you read the 1st Amendment to the the Constitution, it places all restriction on Government, not the people.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You would not know that Government has all the handcuffs by the way current government acts, selling restrictions as connected to the collective good; censorship. The Collective good is often used as an excuse to take away rights and liberty, while not optimizing the collective good. What good came from the censorship beyond a group gaining power? The war against poverty never ends, since it is run by self serving bureaucrats. Collective good is not about political parties serving their own party, to buy dependent votes with the lures of collectivism.

 

[Stevicus]

When the US Constitution was written only land owners could vote. The land owners were the most self reliant and resourceful. The Constitution was set up so the most self reliant, would represent the collective, making the collective more understanding of the needs of being self reliant. Back then family and religion was strong, so collectivism would start at home and community and not need Big Government beyond national defense. Provide of the common defense but promote the general welfare. Promote is less money intensive than provide. Promote can be done with good ideas and helpful people doing their jobs; Lewis and Clark.

The young USA was full of open land with plenty of new frontiers to make the dream of self reliance possible for all. One could become a land owner; kings of their own castle. But it would still take people of resolve and will to tame the wild land. These were the spokesmen; voters, in terms of Government policy.

A key factor in setting up a situation where there was all this open land was not really self-reliance, but reliance on government, specifically the use of military force to eliminate/relocate those who were already on that land. Then the land became "open." It would not have been possible without the collective or without government, yet it was done in such a way as to give people the illusion of "self-reliance," which has become part of the mythos of America.

But it was never real.

 

[crossfire]

You are focusing on legalisms (rights), not on the philosophy. And anyway, how are collective rights NOT individual rights? Since the collective is a collective of individuals. How can five people have rights that one person among them doesn't have?

You keep trying to focus on the idea of imposed force as opposed to voluntary prioritization. Logically, the collective will be far more effective at serving the needs of the many than any individual within it. Thus, it is logical that the individuals within it hold supporting and serving the collective above supporting and serving only themselves. This does not mean they are 'forbidden' from serving their own desires by the collective, as you seem to want to assert, but only that the needs of the collective take priority over the desires of the individuals within it. Because the collective will be more effective at serving the individuals within it than any individual within it could be, alone. And because the goal is that all the individuals get their needs and desires met. (Needs first, desires after.)

Selfishness (individual self-service) is not "illegal". It's just not the healthy or logical priority. It is true that some form of enforcement against damaging individual selfishness will have to be imposed by the collective to protect everyone within it from everyone else, but this will be necessary for any society of humans to coexist. And is yet another example of how serving the collective IS serving the individuals within it.

The defining tenet of collectivism is that the collective is supreme and individuals are secondary. Your argument addresses individuals within the collective, but fails to address individuals outside of the collective. This is where collateral damage often comes in, as individual rights are not deemed important, and your argument does not give support for individual rights existing outside of the collective. This is where wars of exploitation come in, and the resulting collateral damage from it.

 

[Koldo]

When the US Constitution was written only land owners could vote. The land owners were the most self reliant and resourceful. The Constitution was set up so the most self reliant, would represent the collective, making the collective more understanding of the needs of being self reliant.

And why were they the most resourceful? Perhaps because they could afford to buy slaves and then rely on them, for example?

 

[PureX]

The defining tenet of collectivism is that the collective is supreme and individuals are secondary.

Well, that seems to be the only thing you can think of to define it. But it's not really an issue of power or control. It's an issue of functionality. Of how best to achieve the goal of meeting everyone's needs and desires. And that is clearly far more easily gained through mutual cooperation than it is through individual competitive effort. So that it just makes the most logical sense for the individuals within the group to work collectively and cooperatively than for them to work indvidually toward obtainig their needs and desires.

Your argument addresses individuals within the collective, but fails to address individuals outside of the collective.

Humans are a collective, cooperative species. We cannot survive as "individuals outside the collective". The only alternative to collective cooperation is individual parasitism within the collective. And that damages the collective, and therefor everyone else in it.

This is where collateral damage often comes in, as individual rights are not deemed important, and your argument does not give support for individual rights existing outside of the collective.

Individuals within a collective do not have the "right" to exploit or damage the collective's well-being for the sake of their own. And they cannot survive outside of a human collective. So I don't see where you're going with this. We can either serve the collective as the collective serves us, or we can leave the collective and die alone. And at this point there are so many humans on the planet that leaving the human collective would not be an easy thing to do even if one wanted to. The best we can do is leave one collective to join another that we feel is seeking goals more akin to our own.

This is where wars of exploitation come in, and the resulting collateral damage from it.

Wars and exploitation come from those who want to be parasites within their human collective as opposed to being members of it, all serving all each other.

 

[crossfire]

Well, that seems to be the only thing you can think of to define it. But it's not really an issue of power or control. It's an issue of functionality. Of how best to achieve the goal of meeting everyone's needs and desires. And that is clearly far more easily gained through mutual cooperation than it is through individual competitive effort. So that it just makes the most logical sense for the individuals within the group to work collectively and cooperatively than for them to work indvidually toward obtainig their needs and desires.

Humans are a collective, cooperative species. We cannot survive as "individuals outside the collective". The only alternative to collective cooperation is individual parasitism within the collective. And that damages the collective, and therefor everyone else in it.

Individuals within a collective do not have the "right" to exploit or damage the collective's well-being for the sake of their own. And they cannot survive outside of a human collective. So I don't see where you're going with this. We can either serve the collective as the collective serves us, or we can leave the collective and die alone. And at this point there are so many humans on the planet that leaving the human collective would not be an easy thing to do even if one wanted to. The best we can do is leave one collective to join another that we feel is seeking goals more akin to our own.

Wars and exploitation come from those who want to be parasites within their human collective as opposed to being members of it, all serving all each other.

There is no single organized collective which comprises the whole human species, so there is no organization which can speak for the collective or on behalf of the collective of the human species.
Warfare is generally between two different collectives.

 

[PureX]

There is no single organized collective which comprises the whole human species, so there is no organization which can speak for the collective or on behalf of the collective of the human species.
Warfare is generally between two different collectives.

Humanity is a collective. And it does need to cooperate for it's mutual survival. This is more true now than ever. Just as it is also more true now more than ever that one cannot leave that human collective and survive alone. The human collective can tolerate factions within it, and doing so can be good for (still serve) the whole collective. Just as individuals within a collective can each have their own unique desires without those desires damaging the collective. But there are limits to this factionalism and individualism. And those limits will be defined by the point at which they become damaging to the collective.

Because as I have stated many times, now, this is not about rights or authorities, it's about setting our priorities based on the best results for the most individuals. And selfish competition is CLEARLY NOT the best logical means of gaining that result.

 

[crossfire]

Humanity is a collective. And it does need to cooperate for it's mutual survival. This is more true now than every. Just as it is also more true now than ever that one cannot leave that human collective and survive alone. The humans collective can tolerate factions within it, and doing so can be good for (still serve) the whole collective. Just as individuals within a collective can each have their own unique desires without those desires damaging the collective. But there are limits to this factionalism and individualism. And those limits will be defined by the the point where they become damaging to the collective.

Because as I have stated many times, now, this is not about rights or authorities, it's about setting our priorities based on the best results for the most individuals. And selfish competition is CLEARLY NOT the best logical means of gaining that result.

I'm not necessarily against collectives. However, I am against the defining tenet of Collectivism: that the collective can overrule the rights of the individual. That is something I will not back down from, as it holds the increased capacity for evil on the part of collectives in check. I'm also very much concerned about individuals retaining their own minds and not having their minds overcome by the collective's propaganda.

I'm all for mutual cooperation. I'm all for altruism. However, I will take a stand on the retention of the rights of the individual and will not hand them over to any collective. If an individual or a collective violates the rights of an individual without due process of law, that entity should be held responsible.

If that is too radical for you, I'm sorry. Might does not make right.

 

[PureX]

I'm not necessarily against collectives. However, I am against the defining tenet of Collectivism: that the collective can overrule the rights of the individual. That is something I will not back down from, as it holds the increased capacity for evil on the part of collectives in check.

But it's not the "rights" of the collective that takes precedence. It's the NEEDS of the collective. And every collective of humans both recognizes this and agrees to it in the form of laws because they understand that there can be no 'collective endeavor' without them. And without the collective, we die.

I am failing to see what you think the alternative to the collective governing the individual, is.

I'm also very much concerned about individuals retaining their own minds and not having their minds overcome by the collective's propaganda.

Propaganda doesn't work without our consent.

What you are fearing is parasitism within the collective. And that is always a danger. But it's also why the collective must establish laws and enforce them to protect itself from the would-be parasites within it. Also, an individual without a collective will still be in danger from the human parasites. And would have a much diminished ability to protect themselves. So it's not like that stands as a reasonable alternative.

I'm all for mutual cooperation. I'm all for altruism. However, I will take a stand on the retention of the rights of the individual ...

The right to do what? To become a parasite within the collective? To enjoy it's benefits while refusing to serve it's needs? The right to leave the collective and die alone?

If an individual or a collective violates the rights of an individual without due process of law, that entity should be held responsible.

The "laws" are determined by the needs of the collective. And the well-being of all the individuals within it depends on that collective. So to serve the collective is to serve the individuals within it, including one's self. However, if the collective becomes infected by parasites and so is serving only the well being of the parasites at the expense of the other members within it, then it is no longer a "collective" enterprise. In this case "no true Scotsman" is really not a true "Scotsman". And when that happens, the non-parasitic individuals within the poisoned collective will have to unite and forcibly extricate the parasites.

Sad to say, but humanity is and has for a very long time been a battle-ground for the survival paradigms of social parasitism vs social collectivism. Because there really has never been much of an alternative. And as there are so many more of us, now, any possible alternative is greatly diminished.

 

[crossfire]

But it's not the "rights" of the collective that takes precedence. It's the NEEDS of the collective. And every collective of humans both recognizes this and agrees to it in the form of laws because they understand that there can be no 'collective endeavor' without them. And without the collective, we die.

I am failing to see what you think the alternative to the collective governing the individual, is.

Recognition of individual rights, and recognizing that violating basic rights of an individual is evil, even if it is the result of actions of a collective. Collectives must be held responsible for their harmful actions just as individuals are held responsible for any harmful actions they might commit.

Propaganda doesn't work without our consent.

What you are fearing is parasitism within the collective. And that is always a danger. But it's also why the collective must establish laws and enforce them to protect itself from the would-be parasites within it. Also, an individual without a collective will still be in danger from the human parasites. And would have a much diminished ability to protect themselves. So it's not like that stands as a reasonable alternative.

The right to do what? To become a parasite within the collective? To enjoy it's benefits while refusing to serve it's needs? The right to leave the collective and die alone?

Basic human rights like freedom of thought and speech, freedom from being enslaved, freedom to be safe within your own dwelling, etc.

The "laws" are determined by the needs of the collective. And the well-being of all the individuals within it depends on that collective. So to serve the collective is to serve the individuals within it, including one's self. However, if the collective becomes infected by parasites and so is serving only the well being of the parasites at the expense of the other members within it, then it is no longer a "collective" enterprise. In this case "no true Scotsman" is really not a true "Scotsman". And when that happens, the non-parasitic individuals within the poisoned collective will have to unite and forcibly extricate the parasites.

Sad to say, but humanity is and has for a very long time been a battle-ground for the survival paradigms of social parasitism vs social collectivism. Because there really has never been much of an alternative. And as there are so many more of us, now, any possible alternative is greatly diminished.

As I said, I'm not against collectives. I'm against collectives trampling individuals. I'm against collectives being excused for any harmful behavior (collateral damage) just because it is an action of a collective and it was merely an individual that was harmed. In other words, I'm against collectives being a privileged class.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I disagree with the characterization of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle's philosophy as individualistic. Their political thought placed the collective above the individual.

In fact, in the Republic, Plato says that the city is like the body of a person. And if even one little part of a city is in anguish, Plato likens it to a person who although not in pain generally, has an extreme pain in his little finger. Even though the little finger is a small part of the body, says Plato, if a person's little finger is in extreme pain the entire person (ie. the entire city) suffers as a result. What this means is, Plato doesn't think it is right to allow poverty and suffering AT ALL in the ideal city. Because even if it is only one part of the city that suffers, this suffering affects the entire city.

I would say that Plato is most certainly a collectivist more than an individualist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't consider a collectivistic understanding to be ego-centric. I consider it altruistic.

It's more contextual than that, surely?
Whilst it can certainly mean consideration of the group over self, it can also mean individuals are dispossessed, or made subservient, etc.
The power dynamic in a collectivist can vary wildly.

 

[PureX]

A collective is not the same thing as collectivism. And giving the needs of the collective priority is not the same thing as ignoring the needs of the individual. It's simply a recognition of the fact that humans are far more effective when cooperating for their mutual benefit than they are competing with each other, independently.

Unfortunately, thanks to a long history of greed, selfishness and dishonesty under capitalism, there are many of us that can't imagine what collectivism even means, or how it could possibly work. Because under capitalism, all collective effort is subject to the rule of the capital investor. And most of the benefit goes to them. We think this is 'normal' to the point of it being inevitable, when it's not.