|
On April 28 2010 04:23 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 04:11 Yurebis wrote:On April 28 2010 04:03 uiCk wrote:On April 28 2010 03:51 Yurebis wrote:On April 28 2010 03:44 uiCk wrote:On April 28 2010 03:39 Yurebis wrote:On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote:
in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant. 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 im pretty sure both can be used, and neither individualism nor collectivism need to be ignored. i dont see why your trying to make this a VS when i reality its a +. am i missing something here? isnt democracy an individulistic concept (choice by the unit) formulated to concive a result based on a collective agreement starategy? 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 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) indeed 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  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. the internet, wiki, youtube, are based on collective systems; did some abstract entity write the code for wikipedia, or record videos on youtube?
Sorry no, individuals did.
On April 28 2010 04:23 uiCk wrote: networking and such. and its all just a delivery method of the information, and this information comes originaly from academia, so yea there is a huge diference between geting that information from the source and getting footnotes. makes you an amateur, and the one with the diploma is the expert.
why should it matter if the premises are the same?
why not address the points and not brag on where you got the information from?
just for once I mean.
On April 28 2010 04:23 uiCk wrote: for you do 'disaprouve' a reliable system of collectivism because of some flaws you just discovered that are in cahoots with some of your individualistic thoughts. im also showing you why your not converting many people at the moment, and being very vague, just like wiki/youtube.
what's in cahoots, and how do you know how many people I'm "converting"?
do you read their minds?
On April 28 2010 04:23 uiCk wrote:anyways, cheers, its gonna be a bumpy road ahead 
ty
|
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.
don't tell me I'm wrong without saying where I'm wrong at please, it's like the third time already.
On April 28 2010 04:25 Jibba wrote:
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.
I really don't, and I apologize for my limited knowledge, but am I not worthy of thy wisdom? Can you spend your time criticizing me on my premises and not on my intellect?
I'm not asking much, and you're being annoying now imo.
edit: wrong quote, sorry
|
On April 28 2010 04:32 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Arg! This is one of the horrendeously wrong statements you keep repeating. Since you haven't responded to the more philosophical critique of this position let's make it simple. Try to explore the individuals feeling of being part of a group without the group.
the individual's feeling my good sir, happens within that individual's consciousness, does it not?
what he feels is of no interest to me.
If one feels that he's in touch with god, does it make god true?
|
On April 28 2010 04:45 BruceLee6783 wrote:Show nested quote +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. I definitely agree with this. A group of people who are in superficial agreement (or supposed to be, on the surface anyways), for the "greater good" (which is bullshit), are nothing but the sum of many SELF INTERESTS. There is huge evidence of this in history. That "angry mob" mentality is fucking scary. Look at the Salem witch trials. Look at the Roman's crucifixion of Jesus (if you believe in that kind of stuff). One or 2 people get a crazy idea, other people start to agree with it prematurely (not taking time to fully consider the impact of their decision), the fact that people are agreeing with their idea reinforces the idea, which spreads more and more influence...and the end result is something terrible. Ever notice how if you have a lone complaint about something, nothing gets done about it? But when a group of people all start striking or making a scene, then suddenly the offending party begins to take it seriously? I can remember this in college (students didn't agree with a teachers decision to fail most of the class on a test, as they said the test was unfair, and irrelevant to the material presented in class and homework/study assignments). Administration told the teacher to readminister the test and throw out the grades from the first test. If a single student alone had complained about the teacher, NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE ABOUT IT.
yes
I needed a pat in the back ty.
|
I think I should have done what some individualists suggested and simply said that collectivism is a misnomer - everyone is an individualist even if they're altruistic (have the perceived good of others as an end) or simply won't admit it.
it's just that I wanted to preserve the collectivist term so I can keep bashing them I guess.
|
On April 28 2010 04:55 Yurebis wrote:
yes
I needed a pat in the back ty.
Your welcome. I've understood this for years now, just couldn't convince others to believe me.
I'm a male, and have a lot of female co-workers (I'm a nurse) who constantly gossip about men,
and talk about how trashy the men in their lives are.
Dare I open my mouth and try to defend the men? Fuck no. It would suddenly become a
5 against one conversation (anyone watching would see 5 against 1 and auto-assume I'm wrong)
where any valid points I bring up are simply refuted by the fact that there are other people around
them in agreement with one another.
I learned to pick my battles wisely. I didn't say shit to them, because I already know where that
road leads. Save yourself the trouble of changing the world. Let them doom themselves in the long run, it will be much less headache for people like us who understand how influence works.
|
|
|
EDIT: Just saw the response.
You didn't really respond to my post, and I don't really plan on reading 7 pages of this discussion.
However, I will note that it is very peculiar that you uphold a deterministic and individualistic doctrine. I can understand how this can come about, humans are programmed based on their individual environment, however then we can just say that they can be programmed to serve for a collective purpose. There isn't really any freedom to uphold as in a deterministic understanding of human will freedom doesn't really exist. If it were posited that the collective is in the self-interest of the individual, then need we go from here? To say that choice is an illusion is to say that individuality is an illusion, for our choices define our individual selves.
That's all for now.
|
I am a little confused on the point of this. So you're saying that collectivism doesn't exist at all? And that everything is just A LOT of individual acts?
|
A lot of this logic is completely circular
Both individualism and collectivism have the same problems. Nobody can live completely as an individual or as a collective.
Those terms are pretty near meaningless, all people are arguing is the degree of collectivism optimal for the individual and for society.
|
On April 28 2010 05:30 oceanblack wrote: However, I will note that it is very peculiar that you uphold a deterministic and individualistic doctrine.
I believe he is combining both subjective and objective thoughts, with pro's and cons all taken into consideration to produce dialectic conclusions.
I would highly suggest reading and understanding that wiki article to anyone who wants to contribute to this discussion. Your argument must stem from being an INFORMED person, otherwise anyone who actually IS informed will see right through you and they won't take you seriously.
|
On April 28 2010 05:49 BruceLee6783 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 05:30 oceanblack wrote: However, I will note that it is very peculiar that you uphold a deterministic and individualistic doctrine. I believe he is combining both subjective and objective thoughts, with pro's and cons all taken into consideration to produce dialectic conclusions. I would highly suggest reading and understanding that wiki article to anyone who wants to contribute to this discussion. Your argument must stem from being an INFORMED person, otherwise anyone who actually IS informed will see right through you and they won't take you seriously.
Yes but to try to combine two, as I assert, completely contradictory positions is illogical and unreasonable.
|
On April 28 2010 05:30 oceanblack wrote:
You didn't really respond to my post, and I don't really plan on reading 7 pages of this discussion.
However, I will note that it is very peculiar that you uphold a deterministic and individualistic doctrine. I can understand how this can come about, humans are programmed based on their individual environment, however then we can just say that they can be programmed to serve for a collective purpose. There isn't really any freedom to uphold as in a deterministic understanding of human will freedom doesn't really exist. If it were posited that the collective is in the self-interest of the individual, then need we go from here? To say that choice is an illusion is to say that individuality is an illusion, for our choices define our individual selves.
That's all for now.
the programming is within an individuals psyche
so they're still individuals in nature
the only way you could make it so collectivism could really exist, is to program the human "consciousness" to be something apart from their nervous system. the decision making would have to be done outside, by another entity, perhaps for even trivial tasks as moving a limb.
otherwise, if the rational being has full control over his actions, then hes completely individualistic ofc
but again, perhaps this is a matter of semantics, and you could define collectivism in a way that it fits even self-controlling beings by a lesser means of control.
the degree of control that is exerted on a human individual by any external element to me however seems very small.
if you were to say that humans are being collective whenever they react to an external event, then by that same rule, so are trees being controlled by the wind, animals are controlled by the threat of predators, I mean, virtually anything that moves could be an association of control of a body by another.
So I like to draw the line at the full control of its nervous system. Me threatening you with a gun to raise your hands does not directly raise your hands, there's a difference, right? It is you raising your hand, not me, yes/no?
the chain of causality can get messy without any differentiation, which is fine but, I'd rather not do that.
edit: also on the matter of choice, I say that choice is an illusion because anything that is made of atoms and energy follows a certain set of rules no matter what, so it has to be possible therefore that all of human action, including choice, can also be mapped as a chain of chemical events. So yea, consciousness is an illusion, therefore so individuality, but it's not useless. It is a shorthand for understanding those very complex and yet unmapped chain of reactions, much like biology may be a shorthand way of understanding living beings without describing every cell interaction separately.
|
On April 28 2010 05:39 fellcrow wrote:
I am a little confused on the point of this. So you're saying that collectivism doesn't exist at all? And that everything is just A LOT of individual acts?
yes
|
Ok, I read that wiki on dialectic but problem one, if I am not mistaken, results are measured qualitatively. Uh? That is something hard to measure all together and is more objective especially in a case like this. I'm thinking that this is one of those kind of things where this is no right answer and you can fight as long as you want but there is always gonna be people on the opposing side. But anyways I have to disagree to the idea that collectivism doesn't exist. Isn't the American government an example of collectivism. I am not saying collectivism is good, or that it is effective BUT something such as the american government proves that it at the least exists...
|
On April 28 2010 05:46 ShaperofDreams wrote:A lot of this logic is completely circular
do specify
On April 28 2010 05:46 ShaperofDreams wrote:
Both individualism and collectivism have the same problems. Nobody can live completely as an individual or as a collective.
how do you live as a collective?
I hope youre not saying that its a matter of living w\ others v. living alone
cuz I'm certainly not
On April 28 2010 05:46 ShaperofDreams wrote:
Those terms are pretty near meaningless, all people are arguing is the degree of collectivism optimal for the individual and for society.
who is to decide what is optimal?
something can only be optimal for a goal
then whose goal are we to follow on a group?
and why do we have to follow the same goal?
why do we have to be a group?
I say we should be free to choose our goals, as well as our groups.
Would you force me to partake in your perceived "optimal degree of collectivism"?
|
On April 28 2010 05:49 BruceLee6783 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 05:30 oceanblack wrote: However, I will note that it is very peculiar that you uphold a deterministic and individualistic doctrine. I believe he is combining both subjective and objective thoughts, with pro's and cons all taken into consideration to produce dialectic conclusions. I would highly suggest reading and understanding that wiki article to anyone who wants to contribute to this discussion. Your argument must stem from being an INFORMED person, otherwise anyone who actually IS informed will see right through you and they won't take you seriously.
you should have seen through me then cuz I don't understand what you mean lol sry...
|
the programming is within an individuals psyche
so they're still individuals in nature
Sure, individual programming, yet this does not make the case, as I think you attempt to assert, that the individual has certain control over himself in a deterministic universe (as you posit from the premise that the world is materialist, and no being of the materialistic universe can do something outside the laws of cause & effect).
the only way you could make it so collectivism could really exist, is to program the human "consciousness" to be something apart from their nervous system. the decision making would have to be done outside, by another entity, perhaps for even trivial tasks as moving a limb.
You present the term consciousness without defining it so I have little to understand as to what you mean. You mention semantic problems throughout this discussion and so I ask that you please define your terms. However, to take what you have written, you are running backwards. Collectivism is the environmental programming that exists in a deterministic universe, and it is only through the presence of a non-materialistic consciousness from which we can derive a freely willed invidiuality.
otherwise, if the rational being has full control over his actions, then hes completely individualistic ofc
Yet you're deterministic position asserts that the rational being doesn't really have such control as he purely derives his behavior deterministically through the influences/programming of whatever source. This is why I say they are absolutely contradictory.
the degree of control that is exerted on a human individual by any external element to me however seems very small.
How can you say this when deterministically we have no choice and therefore there is only the external element to exert influence over the individual.
By now I get the impression you aren't really a determinist.
So I like to draw the line at the full control of its nervous system. Me threatening you with a gun to raise your hands does not directly raise your hands, there's a difference, right? It is you raising your hand, not me, yes/no?
No because I have been influenced under the circumstances to do so. I didn't "choose" by your position to do so.
edit: also on the matter of choice, I say that choice is an illusion because anything that is made of atoms and energy follows a certain set of rules no matter what, so it has to be possible therefore that all of human action, including choice, can also be mapped as a chain of chemical events. So yea, consciousness is an illusion, therefore so individuality, but it's not useless. It is a shorthand for understanding those very complex and yet unmapped chain of reactions, much like biology may be a shorthand way of understanding living beings without describing every cell interaction separately.
This is the same thing as saying "God" is a nice concept so we don't have to worry about how anything in the world works...Also, you would delusionally accept that "individualism" is a nice "concept" for us to believe in so that we don't become slaves to some tyrannical institution?
I have to go for a while but these are my thoughts...
|
On April 28 2010 05:50 oceanblack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 05:49 BruceLee6783 wrote:On April 28 2010 05:30 oceanblack wrote: However, I will note that it is very peculiar that you uphold a deterministic and individualistic doctrine. I believe he is combining both subjective and objective thoughts, with pro's and cons all taken into consideration to produce dialectic conclusions. I would highly suggest reading and understanding that wiki article to anyone who wants to contribute to this discussion. Your argument must stem from being an INFORMED person, otherwise anyone who actually IS informed will see right through you and they won't take you seriously. Yes but to try to combine two, as I assert, completely contradictory positions is illogical and unreasonable.
wheres the contradiction?
I dont see individualism and determinism as contradictory at all
oh ok I think I get it. what bruce lee said...
I find the world to be ultimately, objectively, deterministic
however, since little results can be gained from seeing it as deterministic (edit: with present day science), for the purpose of a better understanding I adopt many libertarian methodologies to understand human action better.
subjectively, I also believe individualistic mentalities fulfill my ends best.
but it's not that these ideas don't have a truth value just cuz I know they're illusory, again, they're a shorthand way of predicting things, and plus it's principled deduction which is extremely logical and doesn't have inductive flaws. (it perhaps has other flaws of its own)
|
I think u could read a bit on dualism. it's not exactly what I think but... kinda close.
I'm more of a hard determinist who doesn't give a fuck and uses free will methodology anyways
wait, not dualism, what is it again...
compatibilism, duh
well reading it a little more it is closer to what I think than I thought.
free will can be defined in a way that it does not hinge on causation or not
and so can individualism
I actually tried to define individualism back there so it would not... but my definitions suck
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
