|
On April 27 2010 15:56 ShaperofDreams wrote:
People have a misconception about collectivism and individuality IMO. It isn't black and white:
Everybody "is": The Individual + Concessions & Compromises.
What we are arguing here is the degree of concessions & compromises
And some are "+ violent" too
What violence is differs greatly from one to another I know
|
Im gonna sleep b4 theres 2 many europeans for me to handle
|
Well, sometimes government does know what is better for people. Drugs anyone? Or mb ban on smoking? Yes you can smoke, but you would be better off if you dont. And you can guess what most people want: money, power, sex, work less, have more. The problem is that when alot of power is given to state the people in power are the same weak ones with their personal needs. They will abuse it some way or another. If perfect people could be breeded and set to govern the nations in their best interest it would be better than democracy. Untill than democracy is the choice.
|
Well, my belief is that a group is only trully strong, when it consists of strong individuals. There are some exceptions, when there is good leadership, but the above mentioned works best.
|
Its pretty simple, Once you as an individual have food,water, safety, shelter and electricity you will seek out these individual freedoms, or imaginary rights as i love to call them. As George Carlin puts it, they are made up rights. Like the bogeyman because the government can take them away. Japanese Americans 1940, thrown in jail for being of Japanese origin.
People (and I'm being really general here) don't really care about the right to vote until their country starts hogging in profits and they as individuals start feeling entitled to some of that wealth. What we have here is a varying degree of feminization in our society, most of us where raised on the premise of "everyone are special, you all won today, everyone can be number one." and so fourth. What a country does is take all these communities under one wing, stating with its various of political views that all you need to do is vote, that every vote counts and riding the "everyone are special" train.
As for individualism, our western society is already removing certain individuals with radical ideas from the streets and therefore giving rise to a certain form of normality. Or at the very least swinging it in the direction they wish by keeping up a feminist standard.
|
Remove #2 from your list. It's a subset of #3. (And #3 is pretty sketchy unless 'actions' include such minor reactions as unconscious facial twitches, which we regularly use to read a person's mental state.)
#4 is of course laughably wrong. People are complete whores for short-term pleasure and ease.
"The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3)
- Even if he was right in his assumptions, he could NEVER know if he was right unless he allows the man to act freely. (#3+#4)"
The 'collectivist' can ask a person what that person's goals are, and thus incorporate them. If that person purposefully misrepresents their goals, well, they're damning themselves through their own free choice.
Any concerns about coercion are trivially avoided by applying no penalty for sharing your opinion in this fashion. (Freedom of Speech.)
|
For some reason I thought the first few posts were Yuberis arguing with himself. Pretending to be multiple people is an interesting choice in a thread about individualism, though.
Anyway, it's better to come up with actually contestable real life examples for topics such as these, as otherwise you end up arguing over who gets to define certain terms.
|
On April 27 2010 14:40 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals
- I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? The same phenomena is explained with the large group of trees you spoke of earlier. A lone tree is unable to provide much of an ecosystem, but put a whole lot of them in one area and a diverse ecosystem can be sustained. Hence we must agree that the collective is not only a group of individuals, but much more indeed. Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head. -You're metaphysical view doesn't hold anything for your ethics, especially since you haven't proved that anything follows from: the normative institutions of marriage, the normative interpretations of base sensory data such as love, etc. All of normative existence exists only for the existence of the group of humans living in tangent with one another. In the equation of our universe you mistake every human's value to be a '1', when a closer conception would put the value as 'X'. You're missing a big part of our world if you think you could re-create these normative objects that exist 'inside each individuals head'. Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want
- Psychology is a highly respectable field of intellectual knowledge. Granted, to a T I may not be able to see directly into another person's mind; but I can get pretty damn close. Psychology sucks balls I tell you truth. And no you can't get close. An actor could probably make you think he has two hundred different "disorders" imo -Psychology has its place, though I can't tell you enough to satisfy. I'm not particularly interested in it, but it sufficed for enough of an answer to shoot your argument a nice one. Besides, where are you meeting all these 'actor's? In all the years you've been living you still believe that just anyone can do this? Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions
- There is no *assume* about it. Psychologists apply the scientific method to their hypothesis. This is far more legitimate than a mere random die cast. K. Has there ever been a controlled experiment with any degree of accuracy as compared to a natural science? I mean if you wanna believe in the social sciences be my guest I won't complain. Philosophy and introspection are an alternative to that GLHF -Yeah, philosophy is my main intellectual woman. UCLA philosophy is good enough for me, where you at? Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals
- I can't accept this one either. The passions of the human being cannot be denied. In a blind rage, any human could do any number of rational/irrational actions. You would ask me that I not take this into account, for this is not a human being in a natural state of mind. But what is more natural to a human than emotion? To lose oneself into a fully self-absorbed state is nothing new to the history of humanity. Doesn't happen as often as you think How did we live to make computers with all that drama? We'd die to our own campfires till then imo -I merely meant to call out your basic Aristotelian conception of life. It's completely uncalled for, and not defended by anything I saw in your paper. Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
OP, I liked what you had for a while. Thanks for sharing the philosophy. ;D
p.s. I haven't read the 2nd post. Haven't bothered, hope I haven't missed anything good. ur welcome. Second post is fine better than yours LOL jk
;P
lol jk
|
On April 27 2010 13:11 Yurebis wrote:
Which is my third point, Only human action can ever change anything in the universe,
I don't think this makes any sense at all.
|
On April 27 2010 13:11 Yurebis wrote:
So without getting into morals, (morals don't exist in reality btw I'll leave it at that, np) this is basically why thinking collectively even with the "best" (or should I say, altruistic) intentions never works, and as a rule of thumb, I suggest that whatever your assumptions on human behavior and societal organization are, do it voluntarily. If it's not voluntary, it's not worth it, and it will never prove anything. TY for reading.
The first one to pull an objective theory of value is gonna get austrianized, just saying.
I think you will agree that there is a "good" way to build a bridge and a "bad" way to build a bridge -- much like there are good Build Orders in SC/BW and bad ones. The reason that building a bridge in a certain way is the "good" way is that it fulfills the function, the end, the engineers and civilians want it to fulfill -- being able to cross an obstacle.
I think you will also agree that in the same way that there are good ways to build a bridge, there are "good" (non-moral sense) ways to act based on --what-- you want to accomplish. For example, Do you want to be an Olympic Marathon Gold Medal Winner? Well, don't eat only french fries and play WOW all day because if you do that you won't win a medal.
I take your statement "morals don't exist" to mean "Objective Moral Truths" don't exist. And an Objective Moral Truth is, for you, I think, a prescribed end. A prescribed end is a floating or embedded moral commandment with self-sufficient authority. Purportedly, such an end "is right because it is right." So, basically, it is right for no reason or "just because". And since "just because" isn't a good reason, the point you are making here must be something along the lines of this: While you may be willing to concede that once an end has been selected there are "good" and "bad" ways of reaching it but the end that you select to reach --in the first place-- can never be "Objectively" right or wrong. All possible ends are equal. There are no self-sufficient moral commands -- no Objective Moral Truths.
I don't know if I agree with you that there is no Objective moral code but, if it is true that all possible ends are equal then your "rules of thumb" or your claim that coercion is "not worth it" do not hold for people who have selected different ends and you can't give a reason their ends should coincide with your ends. I'll try and explain why.
You would be able to defend non-coercion if you could prove that the ends someone has chosen are best met by following a principle of non-coercion. You would be, in effect, giving someone advice on how to build a "good" bridge that "works". You might use arguments like "You'll be happiest if you live in a society that abides by non-coercion...it will be the most productive society...etc." But what if someone simply chooses a different end? They choose to build a bridge that fails, just to see it fall in the water? Or they choose a path in life that will lead them to experience suffering, simply to explore what it is like? Or they choose to coerce people, just to experience what it feels like?
The point here is that you cannot say that one way of living is -ultimately- better than another . So your claim is reduced to: "If you choose the same ends I do, here are some good tips."
Maybe that is all it was meant to be.
|
The state > everything, and I am immune to critique regardign this statement.
|
To OP:
Don't you think it's a little embarrassing that you need to completely reject all philosophy and psychology to maintain your position?
In order to be as individualistic as you are, you have to drop the concept of empathy.
You have to step aside from the linguistic evidence (see Jurgen Habermas) that the base act of communication shows people believe we have enough in common for talking to be worthwhile.
There are also a lot of unarguable things everyone has in common- the most basic being 'I don't want to starve or die young' .Just starting from these, you can lay down many rules everyone would agree on.
|
I'm not really sure I understand ultimately what you are contesting.
Let us take a simple example, a tribe of hunter-gatherers, 10000BC. Individuals congregate together willingly to better be able to protect themselves from predators, and to make it easier for them to collect food and survive. Your points #2 and #3 don't make much sense in this situation, because the "social contract" was formed to fulfill 2 human needs, in this case protection and food, aka survival. Those individuals who do not feel those needs have absolutely no reason to join the soceity. The society's reason for existence is the efficient fullfilment of these two needs, and that requires that the person/persons who are most skilled and most knowledgeable in this area(surviving in a hostile environment) tell the others what to do, aka become their leaders. The leaders job is to fullfil his assingment, and that is to preserve the collective, for without the collective the individual cannot survive and prosper(or has slim chances to). Now let us assume that the leader sometimes makes decisions that sacrifice an individual to preserve the collective. The individuals accept this risk because the chance of them surviving on their own are very slim, Living in the collective, even with the risk of being sacrificed the individual's chances of survival are still greater than on his own, not to mention that some accept the risk of them being sacrificed if only for the reason that that ensures the survival of their loved ones, children and etc.
Those who do not agree can always run off on their own.
In this simplified scenario the main goals of the collective(to preserve itself) perfectly mirror the main goals of the individuals in it(to maximize their chance of survival, or their family's or whatever).
So what are you saying, that their is no collective in this case? That there shouldn't be? That the individuals do not want to maximize their chance of survival? Or that the leader cannot know that they do, so he shouldn't make them do things that maximize their chance of survival? That the survival of the collective is not the "will" of the hunters? Or that the individuals in this soceity do not think that the survival of the collective is a "greater good"?
The way I see it, if a collective exists (saying it does not is like saying that there exists no such thing as a forest, only trees) then there exists such a thing as the good for the collective. In this example the "greater good" is that which preserves the collective. The individual can choose if he values this "greater good" over his own or not, and can follow whatever path he chooses, but it's ridicoulus to say that the term "greater good" is empty as long as there exist individuals who willingly sacrifice themselves for it.
|
The Judeo-Christian pity value is what causes people to become "collectivist." Of course, no individual can be collectivist without being coerced, as this would mean he has to freely choose to do things which do not benefit him (a psychological impossibility). Any individual who values society over himself is pathetic indeed.
|
Lixler - can't you be self interested without being selfish?
If someone gives to charity (and hence society), he is doing something that does not benefit him, but he is not being coerced.
|
If we are always acting in our best interests and we formed a society and a government, it is in our best interest to have a society and government.
Get outta here, anarchist. Somalia is pretty in the spring. Shit, you seriously have to ignore nearly everything we know about humans to claim we should never make any collective effort.
|
On April 27 2010 20:00 Tal wrote:
Lixler - can't you be self interested without being selfish?
If someone gives to charity (and hence society), he is doing something that does not benefit him, but he is not being coerced.
But he is also being stupid. The only reason he would do that is because he derives pleasure from it (e.g. he tells people he donated money and feels good about himself). But this pleasure is a false, empty one that would lead to an emaciation of the self.
|
Huh? Never heard charity described as 'stupid'. What if he just has some empathy? He imagines if he was starving to death or dying of preventable diesease, concedes he wouldn't like that, and so thinks, 'you know what, I can probably buy two less coffees a month'.
That leads to "emaciation of the self?" Really?
Do go on.
|
On April 27 2010 20:14 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 20:00 Tal wrote:
Lixler - can't you be self interested without being selfish?
If someone gives to charity (and hence society), he is doing something that does not benefit him, but he is not being coerced. But he is also being stupid. The only reason he would do that is because he derives pleasure from it (e.g. he tells people he donated money and feels good about himself). But this pleasure is a false, empty one that would lead to an emaciation of the self.
he dosnt need to be stupid if the charity donation serves a purpose other than simply pleasure for the sake of giving. For example politicians do it because it makes them look better in the publics eye and might win him an election.
|
What if he just believes it's right?
I believe if I see someone drowning and can save them with no risk, I should do that, even if I ruin my nice clothes, purely because of empathy. If I don't have some ulterior motive I'm stupid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
