• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Individualistic World

Ezra

Luctor et emergo
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
534
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I've noticed that over time, people are becoming more and more individualistic. At the "beginning of time", humans were completely communistic; their loyalties lay with the tribe etc. And now look at us. We are individual because we can afford to be. It's no longer an issue that we have to look after one another, because society does that for us, people think. Our government is there to protect us only, people think. Is this the right or wrong way to live and think?
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
I've noticed that over time, people are becoming more and more individualistic. At the "beginning of time", humans were completely communistic; their loyalties lay with the tribe etc. And now look at us. We are individual because we can afford to be. It's no longer an issue that we have to look after one another, because society does that for us, people think. Our government is there to protect us only, people think. Is this the right or wrong way to live and think?
1984
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
It's no longer an issue that we have to look after one another, because society does that for us, people think.

If looking after one another is a function of society, and you are a member of society, then to what extent are you responsible for looking after others? If you could excuse yourself from this responsibility without reason, then what should stopping everyone in society from doing the same? And then in what sense would looking after one another be a function of society?

Our government is there to protect us only, people think.

All things ought to be well managed, but if we lived in a morally ideal world, would anyone need to wield the sword? If no one needed to wield the sword, then what would the role of government be, and what would differentiate it from the role of the family, or society?
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I've noticed that over time, people are becoming more and more individualistic. At the "beginning of time", humans were completely communistic; their loyalties lay with the tribe etc. And now look at us. We are individual because we can afford to be. It's no longer an issue that we have to look after one another, because society does that for us, people think. Our government is there to protect us only, people think. Is this the right or wrong way to live and think?

I don't know that humans were communistic at the beginning of time. They ate each other, for instance. Tribal gatherings arose over a period of time.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Main stream America is an individualistic culture. Don't judge the rest of the world, or even all cultures found in America, by how the main stream culture acts. Native Americans, for example, have long been collectivists and valued compromise over the individualism and competition of main stream society. African Americans have called each other "brother" and 'sister" since the days of slavery because they value their "people" as one interdependent family. Considering America was founded under individualistic principles, it isn't a surprise that is how the main stream culture has evolved. However, the main stream culture, which is mostly comprised of white men, have long looked to the government to enforce their right to be individuals over any "opposing" culture. The policy has been assimilation or extermination of alternative ideals, an attitude which has accelerated over the last few years. For example, you may have noticed white kids taking up "black music" such as Rap or the metrosexual fad. These are all cases where the mainstream culture has attempted to assimilate aspects of other cultures. Extermination is also evident as groups attempt to eliminate anti discrimination legislation, declaring it unnecessary in an "individualistic" society. Of course this attitude disregards group solidarity.
 

Ezra

Luctor et emergo
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
534
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx

Never occurred. What's your point?

If looking after one another is a function of society, and you are a member of society, then to what extent are you responsible for looking after others? If you could excuse yourself from this responsibility without reason, then what should stopping everyone in society from doing the same? And then in what sense would looking after one another be a function of society?

I don't know, ask "people". I do want to add one thing though; who says one is a member of society?

Main stream America is an individualistic culture.

As is Northern, Western and Southern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, parts of Eastern Europe, many parts of Asia, parts of Africa and South America.

Hence, say bye bye to your argument.

Don't judge the rest of the world, or even all cultures found in America, by how the main stream culture acts.

This is rendered void.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
who says one is a member of society?

It is not who is to say, it is what is to say.

There is a sense of society in which you can refuse to participate in it, or others may remove you from participation in it. Human society is a society of rational beings, and so your participation in human society is conditioned upon the extent to which you appear to you use reason. E.g., the rights of children are restricted because they've not yet developed the ability to fully use their reason, psychotics are locked up because they can't be trusted to behave rationally, the rights of criminals are restricted because they've shown that they've not used reason to understand what right action is, and people generally ignore persons they deem to be irrational.

So, you may decide the society you live in is largely irrational and so remove yourself from it, (e.g. you could move to a monastery, or a cabin out in the wilderness, etc.) On the other hand, you could deny the possibilty of rational action and stare at a wall until you die of starvation.

Aristotle said that man is a political animal: anyone who can live apart from society is either a god or a beast. Humans, by their very nature, must interact in order to realize their full potential as human beings. We are born ignorant and must be taught the good and the means to it. But teaching assumes insight, and insight is based on rationality. To borrow from Plato/Socrates: "the unexamined life is not worth living." To lead a thoughtless life devoid of rationality is to be less than human.

If you don't want to be a member of society, that's your choice. Maybe the society you live in is less than rational. I often think that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum. Or, you could choose to live like an animal. But, if you want insight into the good life, then it would behoove you to participate in a society of persons who seek to know what is good and the means to it, and who share their understanding with one another in order to increase the value and richness of life.
 

Ezra

Luctor et emergo
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
534
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It is not who is to say, it is what is to say.

There is a sense of society in which you can refuse to participate in it, or others may remove you from participation in it. Human society is a society of rational beings, and so your participation in human society is conditioned upon the extent to which you appear to you use reason. E.g., the rights of children are restricted because they've not yet developed the ability to fully use their reason, psychotics are locked up because they can't be trusted to behave rationally, the rights of criminals are restricted because they've shown that they've not used reason to understand what right action is, and people generally ignore persons they deem to be irrational.

So, you may decide the society you live in is largely irrational and so remove yourself from it, (e.g. you could move to a monastery, or a cabin out in the wilderness, etc.) On the other hand, you could deny the possibilty of rational action and stare at a wall until you die of starvation.

Aristotle said that man is a political animal: anyone who can live apart from society is either a god or a beast. Humans, by their very nature, must interact in order to realize their full potential as human beings. We are born ignorant and must be taught the good and the means to it. But teaching assumes insight, and insight is based on rationality. To borrow from Plato/Socrates: "the unexamined life is not worth living." To lead a thoughtless life devoid of rationality is to be less than human.

If you don't want to be a member of society, that's your choice. Maybe the society you live in is less than rational. I often think that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum. Or, you could choose to live like an animal. But, if you want insight into the good life, then it would behoove you to participate in a society of persons who seek to know what is good and the means to it, and who share their understanding with one another in order to increase the value and richness of life.

You pretty much summarised my thoughts on life. However, although I agree with him, just because Aristotle says something doesn't make it true.
 

Veneti

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
264
MBTI Type
XNTX
I've noticed that over time, people are becoming more and more individualistic. At the "beginning of time", humans were completely communistic; their loyalties lay with the tribe etc. And now look at us. We are individual because we can afford to be. It's no longer an issue that we have to look after one another, because society does that for us, people think. Our government is there to protect us only, people think. Is this the right or wrong way to live and think?


There's always been a selfish gene; Just now we can express it.

Although, people now probably have become more materialistic and less interpersonal relationship based.

I'd also say that the introduction of effective contraception, has probably liberated more women to make their own decisions in life, than many before could not make.

Lastly, is being "self centric" all that bad? There’s plenty of people being parasites in relationships..... I think many people could be individualists if there weren't so "codependant" and insecure about being alone.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi

You took the first and last line of my argument, asserted your own opinions, and never even addressed the main points I made to support my thoughts.

Hence, your argument is void. :rofl1:

The fact of the matter is, individualistic culture has been successful because it has forcefully exploited every collectivistic culture it has encountered.
 

Ezra

Luctor et emergo
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
534
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Although, people now probably have become more materialistic and less interpersonal relationship based.

I disagree. I don't think all the Greeks or all the Romans or all the Babylonians collectively gave a shit about their fellow man's feelings. You get just as many interpersonal people now as you did then.

You took the first and last line of my argument, asserted your own opinions, and never even addressed the main points I made to support my thoughts.

Did you ever study logic? If the premise is false, what's the point in looking at the rest of the argument?

The fact of the matter is, individualistic culture has been successful because it has forcefully exploited every collectivistic culture it has encountered.

Incorrect. Take the countries that have sweatshops in them when once they did not. They were by no means collectivist. People were just as individualistic as the capitalists who built in their countries; they simply had a different mode of being, and lived on a farm instead of in a factory bunkbed.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Did you ever study logic? If the premise is false, what's the point in looking at the rest of the argument?

The first sentence of every paragraph is the premise? :huh:

Incorrect. Take the countries that have sweatshops in them when once they did not. They were by no means collectivist. People were just as individualistic as the capitalists who built in their countries; they simply had a different mode of being, and lived on a farm instead of in a factory bunkbed.

Ah, but the people who worked in sweatshops are traditionally people from small rural villages. Try again.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
I've noticed that over time, people are becoming more and more individualistic.

I disagree. I don't think all the Greeks or all the Romans or all the Babylonians collectively gave a shit about their fellow man's feelings. You get just as many interpersonal people now as you did then.

You confuse me...

individualism is opposite of collectivism?

individualism is about seeing self as independent of others, collectivism is about relating self to others (interpersonal)...

If you have as many interpersonal people right now as you did before... where is the extra individualistic people coming from?
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Dude what are you talking about?

We're no more individualistic than we were before. In the rhetoric we're supposed to be, but by and large, individualism is basically discouraged.

People live their 'individualism' if it could be called that, vicariously through movies like Juno or TV shows like House, where the star character possesses a standout and or daring persona.

I'd say 90-95% of the people, at least in america, at best, pretend; we play at individualism, and let our quasi-adventurous bombast do the rest of the work for us.

It's easy to tell stories.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Dude what are you talking about?

We're no more individualistic than we were before. In the rhetoric we're supposed to be, but by and large, individualism is basically discouraged.

People live their 'individualism' if it could be called that, vicariously through movies like Juno or TV shows like House, where the star character possesses a standout and or daring persona.

I'd say 90-95% of the people, at least in america, at best, pretend; we play at individualism, and let our quasi-adventurous bombast do the rest of the work for us.

It's easy to tell stories.

True, the individual liberties in this country have been falling to the wayside but that doesn't change the fact that the average American values independent freedom and rights. But meh, my point was made and obviously completely misunderstood by people trying to be "logical" :rolli: so no sense wasting my time.
 

Veneti

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
264
MBTI Type
XNTX
The fact of the matter is, individualistic culture has been successful because it has forcefully exploited every collectivistic culture it has encountered.

Actually, I think you are slightly wrong here. You are sort of implying that "capitalism" is more individualistic and hence the destroyer of "Collectivist" (Communist) scenario's.

One thing I read when I was about 10 I have always remembered... that is

"All people are inherently greedy, its just that individual greed is harnessed in a capitalist society leading to the benefit of all, whereas in a communist society it is suppressed but mainfests itself in other ways".

That statement is very true. You only need to look at all these collectivist economies wearing orange and going capitalist to see what is most favoured by the people.
 

Veneti

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
264
MBTI Type
XNTX
I disagree. I don't think all the Greeks or all the Romans or all the Babylonians collectively gave a shit about their fellow man's feelings. You get just as many interpersonal people now as you did then.

Personal reward is far higher in the modern economy. People are more self centric.

I think the much lower propensity to have children is a pretty good indicator of that. The fact that there are more and more 1 person households is another statistic.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Actually, I think you are slightly wrong here. You are sort of implying that "capitalism" is more individualistic and hence the destroyer of "Collectivist" (Communist) scenario's.

Historically, capitalistic endeavors have lead to exploitation of collectivistic cultures. Take colonialism. Columbus comes across the ocean, commits horrible atrocities against the native inhabitants. Next comes the conquistadors who label the natives of lands as "sodomoites" so they can justify the raping and pillaging of the lands. Later come European settlers who force the Natives off their communal lands. Later, the United States takes up policies of extermination, removal, or forceful assimilation of the natives. The slave trade booms and the ancestors of African Americans are forced to labor for the white land owners. Later immigration begins to boom in America and the the traditional familial immigrants are pushed into working low wage dangerous factory jobs, where they could blacklisted if they complained and were fired once they were sick or injured.

Capitalism does not have a good historical track record.

"All people are inherently greedy, its just that individual greed is harnessed in a capitalist society leading to the benefit of all, whereas in a communist society it is suppressed but mainfests itself in other ways".

That is a value judgement. I believe everyone has an agenda. Not everyone's primary agenda is their own self preservation and promotion.

That statement is very true. You only need to look at all these collectivist economies wearing orange and going capitalist to see what is most favoured by the people.

Communism is not a synonym of collectivism. In fact, the argument isn't even about the merits of capitalism, which there are many, but the faults found in individualistic capitalism promoting the exploitation of collectivistic cultures. Of course if you want to make the argument that Native Americans were communists then I would love to hear it.
 

Veneti

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
264
MBTI Type
XNTX
but the faults found in individualistic capitalism promoting the exploitation of collectivistic cultures. Of course if you want to make the argument that Native Americans were communists then I would love to hear it.

Communists are collectivists. However collectivists are no different to shareholders in a listed company.

Look at the Russian revolution, that killed more than any individualistic pursuit.

Furthermore, for individualistic people to exploit collectivistists they must form groups and are therefore collectivists. A company listed on the stockmarket is a collectivist organisation

If you want to talk about less advanced or less powerful people and how they are exploited, then thats nothing to do with individualistic capitalism. Did Native Americans not form tribes and kill each other.. is that not expolitation.

Take the NZ Maori for instance, a particular tribe bought a whole bunch of guns of the European immigrants got in their canoes and went and blasted another tribe.

In essence, the development of technology allows people to exploit each other. Not whether they are individualists or collectivists.
 
Top