Collectivism v. Individualism - Page 10

On April 28 2010 08:10 SirGlinG wrote:
Since we're in the discussion of power and leadership I'd like to link something.

It's an interview with an anarchistic Anthropology teacher from Yale ( his interview starts at 34:40)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2604466457908048048#

On April 28 2010 08:10 hefty wrote:


Whereas I agree to your conclusion (that it is futile to argue with him) I do not agree with how you arrived there. Individualism does not require you to accept a conventional understanding of free will. Look to my post above for details.

Yurebis:
When you responded to said post it seemed you felt the need to rebuttle even though it was in alignment with your opinions. I guess it's natural since you have been argueing for 9 pages, I just found it funny.

On April 28 2010 08:14 ShaperofDreams wrote:
You're spouting a bunch of terms and really they don't mean much

You are asking a lot of completely irrelevant, meaningless questions that are answered in the statement you are challenging if you look at it with any depth at all.

You told me you believed in free will as an illusion and at the same time you argue against it. You literally contradict yourself in almost every statement.

and a lot of stuff that I've said you just don't get.

The way to learn is not by pummeling with those types of questions it's by making a statement of your own. I have no idea what you are arguing anymore because you contradict yourself so much.

On April 28 2010 08:20 ShaperofDreams wrote:
please tell me what your argument is man

edit: what is your point

On April 27 2010 15:15 ShaperofDreams wrote:
Choice is an illusion. If you were someone else you would do exactly what they would and vice versa.

On April 28 2010 08:29 ShaperofDreams wrote:
Also you are talking about entitlement and right at the same time as you denouce them.

On April 28 2010 08:29 ShaperofDreams wrote:
Sorry I'm not wasting anymore of my time here.

On April 28 2010 08:30 Yurebis wrote:
thats me being against the conventional notion of free will

... but did I convince you that the collective notion of a "greater good" does not exist?

On April 28 2010 08:40 Madkipz wrote:


TLDR: you are stating that a collective is just a bunch of individuals gathering together yet you are against free will and believe anyones individual choice in any given matter has its base in genetics?

On April 28 2010 07:24 hefty wrote:
I had decided not to post here again but since the subject changed...



Perhabs my take on determinism/free will can be of some help.

I also regularly use the terms free will and choices, because they make intuitive sense. If a talk of my choice the other day, or my belief that the government must seek to preserve the free will of the individual, I have given you meaningful information that would be more difficult to communicate without these terms. Still, I have some issues regarding the idea of free will - let me explain.

I believe that whenever we make a choice we are influenced by a huge range of factors contributing to our dicision in the very moment. The list includes current state of mind, the recent chain of events leading to this moment, the sum of past experiences, current physical level of arousal, overall physical condition, exterior conditions such as weather, and inputs from the immediate surroundings including interactions with other human beings. In other words, my choice will be based on who I am (as a result of everything I went through that shaped me to this day) in this very moment. That's a lot of things, most of them very hard to account for I agree, but nonetheless they are likewise results of a prelude of similar instances. I believe that my choice will be a direct result of the past that shaped me and the present in which is it made - and since it is a direct result of this, it is in the moment i chose, actually determined. Of course I have the notion of free will, as the process of chosing makes me go thourgh all sorts of considerations, but since the outcome is based on these (already induced) considerations/notions the result of my decision making is already given.

I may have repeated myself unnecessarily in that paragraph, forgive me. Now, if there is anything that influences my choice, which is not accounted for in the whole string of experiences leading to this moment, what could it be? If I am to maintain an idea of free will I will need some other factor apart from these. What could it be? Would would make it so that my choice in this very instance could have been different from the one I'm making? A random variable? If the outcome of my decision process is influenced by a truly random factor, it just makes exhibition of free will a die roll. I don't like to entertain that idea - and luckily it seems improbable to me. I would much rather my choices are made by me (that is: determined by who I am).

So you see following this (possibly flawed, but please tell me how) logic, even though we are autonome agents, our actions are still determined. At least in a sense. It doesn't change a thing however, because as all these actions are a consequence of the world they are working upon, and that world's responses as much a result of these, it gives no reason to do anything differently than we already does. If I chose to kill a man, the world should still react and lock me up, because such is the rules/conditions that our many choices have created (even when choices can't be said to be free in the normal sense). This also takes care of the "problem" presented in this post:


At least in my understanding of determinism, the OP should still create this post and LaughingTulkas should still reply to it, because the circumstances leading to all this prescribed it. We shall still have this discussion, and if I chose not to take anymore part of it, it is again a result of the circumstances leading to that particular choice.

In this notion of determinism, it doesn't quite make sense to say that "it doesn't matter what I do, because it's all just predetermined", because you always do what you do for a reason - as a result. Likewise, it has no moral implications, you are still responsible for your actions as much as with your free will.

Disclaimer:
Not writing this to win anyone over to my point of view. What I presented is easily stated, and parts come close to being tautologies. I don't really believe in a concept like truth, I believe in perspectives. So I will welcome other perspectives on the matter - this doesn't mean I refrain from argueing of course. I'm especially interested if anyone can point out something that could preserve a notion of free will within the understanding of choice presented above. How can there be room for anything not accounted for by who we are, when making a choice?

EDIT: Shit, I need to add: I don't think of myself as a true determinist, because I don't really believe in determinism broadly. Not even in the world of physics. This also introduce some randomisation into the choice situation, I am aware, but it still doesn't take anything away from the awkward relationship between the concept of free will and the idea of chosing based on your personality, experiences and current influences.

On April 28 2010 09:07 Madkipz wrote:
Oo alot of isms, this conversation has left me with the notion that your just an advanced troll with alot of time on your hands. LIKE ME ;D

what is the difference between free will and choosing based on experience and current influence are they not one and the same?

Its like burning your hand on the frying pan, you could choose to do it again but you would be an idiot for choosing to do so point being, you could do either and thus maintain the idea that your will is free.

On April 28 2010 08:41 Yurebis wrote:
it seems like a lot of people think I'm being contradictory but I'm yet to find a single mistake..
besides that one about trying to prove something does not exist.

On April 28 2010 11:06 oceanblack wrote:

At this point I'm finished with my participation in the discussion. When you are called on for your contradictions, you try to throw labels which you say "sound nice" but you really don't care if they are relevant for your position.

On April 28 2010 11:06 oceanblack wrote:
A compatibilist isn't a determinist who just throws the concept of free will out there just to communicate, there is a reasonable stance on how there can be free will and determinism but that's an argument that has no place in this thread.

On April 28 2010 11:06 oceanblack wrote:
TBH, if people are still wondering what he's trying to say.

He is just bitching out that regimes which try to force you to do something are bad. He thinks all collectives fall under this description and therefore all collectives are bad. Your examples just prove that even further.

On April 28 2010 11:06 oceanblack wrote:
Is it really necessary to have 10 pages of you trying to say that?

On April 28 2010 08:26 Yurebis wrote:

my argument for you is

1- collectives do not have a mind of their own
2- therefore, they cannot have ends of their own
3- therefore, there cant be a "greater good"

all that exists is your perceived notion of what could be good for everyone else
never is it objective
never is it binding
never *should* (that being my opinion) it entitle you to act on behalf of others without their permission.

when I talk of collectivism
I talk of the notion that such greater good exists, and people are entitled to act on it on behalf of others even without permission, be it by voting or being thugs themselves.
when such action occurs, it is ultimately an individual forcing his will upon another
not "the greater good", as it does not exist

On April 28 2010 12:03 L wrote:

So, if we posit a single instance in which a collective policy would result in objectively better results, where does that leave you?

On April 28 2010 12:08 Yurebis wrote:

that leaves me swearing at u and calling u a liar like a crying baby

On April 28 2010 12:12 L wrote:

I guess we'll start with a hilariously obvious one:

Civil society.

Your move.

Edit: Lol okay, try to justify living in a forest in a war of all against all as subjectively superior. Stretch that relativism as far as you can go, brosef.

On April 28 2010 12:20 Yurebis wrote:


I'm not advocating that.
in fact I would posit that the establishment of collectivism allows that to a much greater extent than if people were individualistic and didn't put up with involuntary leaders.

when people are free to do as they may, they also risk full retaliation for their actions. it is not so in a collective system. a nation's leader is free to send other people to die in a way "for the greater good", exempt from all retaliations to his person nor property (unless you consider the citizens his property, then I guess you could call the death of his peons and ravaging of their homes a loss)

so as you see, collectivism always enables the group in charge of promoting "the greater good" to fuck up real good w\ little consequences. the costs of violence are externalized to the taxpayers aka slaves.

oh I'm sorry, I forgot you only listen to empirical claims. why do I bother...

and I'm sorry what does civil society mean? is it something like government gave people "rights"?