Collectivism v. Individualism - Page 6

On April 28 2010 03:39 Yurebis wrote:

Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.

...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.

there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything?
May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.

I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm

On April 28 2010 03:56 Yurebis wrote:

If you want to prove that my biology sucks, I concede, it does suck
Sorry I'm not going to read that. It's completely unrelated.

On April 28 2010 03:55 o[twist] wrote:


but it doesn't really hold up in this scenario. for example, if the question is "do collectives operate in a way that distinguishes them from a set of individuals operating independently? i.e., does the notion of a 'collective' add anything to our understanding?" then you need to look at, you know, how individuals and collectives ACTUALLY OPERATE. if you're positing a rational actor model of the individual, well, that may or may not be an accurate model, empirically. you can't define away the empirical question.

On April 28 2010 03:57 Three wrote:


I'm glad you know that something you didn't read is unrelated. What was your purpose in making this thread exactly?

On April 28 2010 03:51 Yurebis wrote:

On a descriptive basis, I don't give a shit and you're right (i still doubt sociology or psychology can prove shit tho)

On a prescriptive basis, doing the top-bottom thing is impossible, due to the reasons in the op

only because you are able to describe how a herd behaves, doesn't mean it should act on one way or another
because the herd has no goal, so there can be no ought-ought prescription
the only thing that has goals are rational beings
individuals

On April 28 2010 03:56 Jibba wrote:

The problem is you're reducing something that's very complex and has many nuances into very elementary elements.

On April 28 2010 03:56 Jibba wrote: The arguments I see in your post aren't very well developed; you stop advancing them once you get to the point that suits your pre-aligned political position. We're all guilty of that (it goes along with the objectivity being impossible thing) but I think you're doing a disservice to yourself by doing it, since you seem genuinely interested in this kind of thing. You're also drifting between ideas and using them incongruently, such as rational choice, altruism, consequentialism, etc.

On April 28 2010 03:56 Jibba wrote:
I don't believe you can argue one is inherently worse than the other, as you're trying to do. Both perspectives have faults and society tends to gravitate within the two, given current political, economic and social climates.

On April 28 2010 03:56 Jibba wrote:
I would assume like most people that refer to Austrian economics that you fall towards Kant's ethical model, which is fine and dandy (although it's absurd and likely impossible to ONLY subscribe to that in all situations) but if you want to prove the ends don't justify the means with regards to government, you haven't really proven how the means (in this case, collectivism - whether this is true or not is also arguable) are bad.

On April 28 2010 03:56 Jibba wrote:
Basically, it's ok to lean towards individualism more than collectivism or vice versa, but I don't think your justification is very strong. I think before you try to develop and broadcast your own system, you should look to others who have done it before you and see how it fits, like Ayn Rand or something.

On April 28 2010 04:03 uiCk wrote:

fairly transparent, the bolded part, represent oldest existansial question, what is our goal? what is our purpouse? obviously it seems you have gained a new level and have come accross what we call a conscience, and your trying to make the world realize you just realized you are right! (well in your world at least)

On April 28 2010 04:03 uiCk wrote:
sorry to say but you just sound like any other kid with a Wiki major / Youtube minor with a big opinion

On April 28 2010 04:00 Yurebis wrote:
A little empiricism can't hurt, ok. But some things can be so easily concluded from an "obvious" set of principles that I don't see why do you have to induct everything.

Does anything in social relations exist outside of individuals? No, it's absolutely all in their heads.
Therefore, human relations can be 100% understood by understanding individuals themselves

A set of individuals operating independently is still a set of individuals which can be independently understood. Sure you can study group action, but you got to remember at first, that nothing exists outside of the individual! A group has no goal but the goals of each individual, no wishes or needs. It's all aggregated, right?

On April 28 2010 04:15 o[twist] wrote:


how can you deduce the lack of something in social relations apart from individuals?

On April 28 2010 03:42 Three wrote:
Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories:

On April 28 2010 04:11 Yurebis wrote:
indeed

and your assumption is correct, yet, does not make my points any less valid.

I think wiki and youtube are great sources of information. People without the internet would otherwise have to read books to get the same deal, and since less are willing to spend the time doing that, less information is disseminated. I say everything in laymans terms not only because it saves me the time of learning the formal concepts, but it also promotes a general undesrtanding of the same concepts

Why stick with the old methods if the new is much more efficient at reaching the supposedly same end?

I think people that preach for formal education rather do not have the goal of education, but of aesthetics and social status. They use the lingo not to promote debate, but to set themselves off the "uneducated" crowds. I don't like that at all.

On April 28 2010 04:25 Jibba wrote:
I have zero desire to go after your premise, this is like a repeat of a 100 and 200 level course. I'm just saying that I understand what you're trying to do, but you're not doing it successfully and you need to look deeper if you want to prove it to other posters, and I suspect maybe yourself as well. Parsimony is great, but you're chopping all the branches off the tree.

I'm just trying to help you out in your own personal quest for knowledge. For instance, when I say things like Kantian ethics or consequentialism, I don't think you know what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting you read Weber or Mannheim (yet), Rand and Hayak are both fairly readable.

On April 28 2010 04:00 Yurebis wrote:
A set of individuals operating independently is still a set of individuals which can be independently understood. Sure you can study group action, but you got to remember at first, that nothing exists outside of the individual! A group has no goal but the goals of each individual, no wishes or needs. It's all aggregated, right?

On April 28 2010 04:30 o[twist] wrote:


everyone should read kant and weber; rand and hayek, less important

On April 28 2010 04:18 Yurebis wrote:

TIME OUT.
I cannot, and you got me there.

HOWEVER. I can falsify the claims that there exists something, when it does not.

which is the point of the thread.

no, wait, I'm confused, let me put on my thinking hat for a second.

On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote:
I really think the OP needed a more precise definition on collectivism. Perhabs other thnigs as well, but this problem seems to repeat itself over and over in this thread:

On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote:
- Yurebis state that collectivists are false in claiming that they "know what's best" since they are only individuals, and thus can not speek on behalf of others (a sentiment I can agree with to some extend - at least I don't accept that anyone can be more right than I on the subject that is my needs/wishes).

On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote:
- Yurebis tries to prove this through and elaborate range of statements and premises, some of which are highly debatable*. Among these are the one critical to most of this thread: We can only know what is on our own mind, leading Yurebis to state/insinuate that nothing is collective, it is only individuals participating.

On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote:
- People criticize this claim as it seems evident that a lot of things are collective in nature (they don't necessarily touch on the original concern though - whether a collectivist (here: someone who feels right to enforce a notion of the common good upon his fellow men) can really know what is best for the individual.

- Yurebis responds to said critics, never having to sweat because people's criticism doesn't really apply to his original statement (as we understand it if we accept the agenda I have hereby presented), but rather to the many claims that were made along the way.

On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote:
I think, Yurebis, you could have been clearer on what you said out to do with this. As for me, I could easily accept/discuss the idea that anyone who claims to know what's better for his neighbour than the neighbour himself is in the wrong, what I can't really be bothered to discuss however, is whether collective manifestations exists.

On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote:
* And imo outright wrong. Noone needs to agree with all the objections against these points, but at least it should be very obvious that they aren't all undisputable. Whether a group is only a set of individuals is highly debatable, whether people act consciously most of the time also, psychology being bs is definately a very opinionated claim etc. I realize that many of these aren't part of the OP, but the one that matters to the arguement (not in this footnote, but above) is.

On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote:


Whole-heartedly agreed. My whole problem with this is that so many things are lost in mere rhetorics here, a greater respect for different spheres of knowledge would be welcome.

On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote:
Finally, I need to add that this is not an attempt to patronize Yurebis. I merely got fed up with how the discussion stagnated because of misunderstandings.

On April 27 2010 13:11 Yurebis wrote:
First I want to establish the obvious and say that the collective is nothing but a collection of individuals, much like a forest is nothing but a collection of trees (not my analogy by far). Many talk of the "greater good", or the "will" of a nation, but those terms are completely empty. There is no greater good, there may be a net good of every individual, but without the individuals, the greater good simply does not exist anywhere in reality. Without its citizens, the nation's will does not exist.