Is individualism universal?

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    "Ego," it seems to me, assumes that individualism is some kind of natural thing rather than a cultural construction.



    The realization of the "self" makes you aware of your surroundings. Individualism stems from consciousness and it is a natural thing. However, in my opinion, egoism is a result of cultural constuction.



    Communism and capitalism both have their positives and negatives. But true communism and true capitalism don't exist by their original definitions.



    As an example, capitalism is defined as an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. Does loss of employement to overseas outsourcing translate to development of the local society? Globalization has introduced more factors into the game. The casuality seems to be humanity in the face of idealogy.
  • Reply 22 of 47
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by talksense101

    The realization of the "self" makes you aware of your surroundings.



    The "self" is also a cultural construction. And if being aware of your surroundings is the hallmark of it, then we ought to include things like plants.



    Quote:

    Individualism stems from consciousness and it is a natural thing.



    "Consciousness" is also a culturally constructed term, and therefore only natural to the degree that cultures and the choices they make are natural.
  • Reply 23 of 47
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    The "self" is also a cultural construction. And if being aware of your surroundings is the hallmark of it, then we ought to include things like plants.







    "Consciousness" is also a culturally constructed term, and therefore only natural to the degree that cultures and the choices they make are natural.




    Consciousness is culturally constructed? Consciousness is just our word for our thoughts, isn't it? How can "thinking" not be natural?
  • Reply 24 of 47
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Consciousness is culturally constructed? Consciousness is just our word for our thoughts, isn't it? How can "thinking" not be natural?



    isn't consciousness a loaded term, in the end, that's used to describe more than interiority? Doesn't it also imply something that other animals don't have? Self-awareness? A sense of "self," itself?
  • Reply 25 of 47
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    isn't consciousness a loaded term, in the end, that's used to describe more than interiority? Doesn't it also imply something that other animals don't have? Self-awareness? A sense of "self," itself?



    That's not the way I would use the term, but even if it's defined as self-awareness, some animals, such as chimps, are thought to have self-awareness. And humans aren't thought to develop it until around age 2.



    But let's leave animals out of it - are you saying that consciousness isn't natural? Whether it's defined as thinking or self-awareness, I think of it as a by-product of our physiology, our brains. Do people in other cultures not think, or are they not self-aware? I find that extremely hard to believe. They may have different beliefs about their relationships to others and to the world, but consciousness itself is pretty basic stuff.
  • Reply 26 of 47
    Quote:

    Is individualism universal?



    I think I speak for everyone when I say, "no."
  • Reply 27 of 47
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    That's not the way I would use the term, but even if it's defined as self-awareness, some animals, such as chimps, are thought to have self-awareness. And humans aren't thought to develop it until around age 2.



    But let's leave animals out of it - are you saying that consciousness isn't natural? Whether it's defined as thinking or self-awareness, I think of it as a by-product of our physiology, our brains. Do people in other cultures not think, or are they not self-aware? I find that extremely hard to believe. They may have different beliefs about their relationships to others and to the world, but consciousness itself is pretty basic stuff.




    BRussell: Not avoiding you. Lots of work at the moment. Will respond in detail this afternoon or evening, hopefully. Interested in what you have to say about this.
  • Reply 28 of 47
    Quote:

    That's not the way I would use the term, but even if it's defined as self-awareness, some animals, such as chimps, are thought to have self-awareness. And humans aren't thought to develop it until around age 2.



    OK. Enough work for now (I've had my head in Jacques Lacan's writing all day...ugh).



    I should admit that when I said "consciousness" above I actually more or less mis-spoke. To clarify, I meant "consciousness" only in the sense that it is often equated with "self-ness," by which I mean "individuality."



    I thought the original question (which most of us didn't understand) was about the nature and notion of individuality itself and whether or not such a concept is universal (which I read as "natural").



    Quote:

    But let's leave animals out of it - are you saying that consciousness isn't natural? Whether it's defined as thinking or self-awareness, I think of it as a by-product of our physiology, our brains.



    Well, since I don't really know what consciousness is, I can't answer that. But I will say this: things (thoughts, ideas, dreams, images, desires, what-have-you) seem to go on inside of me. I don't know what they are or where they come from. They could come from my spleen for all I know. If this is what we're going to define as "consciousness," then yes, I'm with you. Seems to be natural.



    But if by "consciousness" we mean all of that mind/body Cartesian split stuff, or if we mean the notion that I am an "individual" (that is, discrete and defined largely by my experiences and my personal, public, sexual, national, intellectual (etc) histories), then I'm not so sure that that's natural or even inevitable. I'm interested in the notion of the "self," in the end, and whether or not it's changed over time.



    Quote:

    Do people in other cultures not think, or are they not self-aware? I find that extremely hard to believe. They may have different beliefs about their relationships to others and to the world, but consciousness itself is pretty basic stuff.



    Yes, if we define "consciousness" as thinking, I'm with you. If we blur the terms "consciousness" and "self," though, I think we may be in different territory.



    OK. Back to Lacan.



    Cheers
  • Reply 29 of 47
    I think, therefore I am.



    Individuality is born out of these thoughts, isn't it?
  • Reply 30 of 47
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Good. Some life came into this again.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I think there's a difference between a voluntary collectivistic system and one that is imposed without the consent of the governed. Voluntary collectives happen all the time - I'd regard my family and friendships as collectivistic. But the government of China rules through terror and kills dissenters. I feel pretty comfortable judging that kind of "collectivism" as objectively wrong.



    But lets take the extreme example: Someone living in tribe culture. Noone is using force to force them into a collective but the members haven´t been exposed to the idea that you could be outside that group. Lets say an individual of that group is exposed to life outside that group. If (s)he breaks with the group it could disrupt it (if the person was from "the farming family" that provided the food for the group to take an example). Would the need for the group take presedence over the need of the individual?
  • Reply 31 of 47
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by talksense101

    I think, therefore I am.



    Individuality is born out of these thoughts, isn't it?




    Depends on what we mean by individuality. Descartes says, essentially, that although he can't prove anything else, he knows that he exists because he is able to think about whether or not he exists. Lacan is going to come along later and joke with this, since Descartes effectively draws a distinction between thinking and being, and so you are where you do not think.
  • Reply 32 of 47
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    A picture is not a novel. Ayn Rand was a terrible novelist. I tore Atlas Shrugged in half so I wouldn't have to carry around twice as much bullshit as I needed to.



    A picture is not a novel??



    (Sorry... thought this was a coherent conversation.)



    P.S. Sounds like you're carrying plenty.
  • Reply 33 of 47
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by elppa cam

    A picture is not a novel??



    (Sorry... thought this was a coherent conversation.)



    P.S. Sounds like you're carrying plenty.




    Weird. I thought you were the one who said that Rand wrote beautifully and used a picture of her as some kind of bizarro-world proof of the claim.
  • Reply 34 of 47
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Weird. I thought you were the one who said that Rand wrote beautifully and used a picture of her as some kind of bizarro-world proof of the claim.



    No... just a visual for those who may not know who she was. And you speak as if I stand alone in my admiration of her work. Her books have been read and loved worldwide... even in the bizzaro-world.



    But Atlas Shrugged is not the only novel she wrote...



    Anthem

    We The Living

    The Fountainhead

    Altas Shrugged

    Night Of January 16th



    and of course her non-fiction...



    The Virtue of Selfishness

    Capitalism: The Unknown ideal

    Philosophy: Who Needs It

    For the New Intellectual

    The Romantic Manifesto



    On and on...



    So, any open minded person wanting to get a point of view the left fears...





    And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.



    This god, this one word:



    "I."




    Ayn Rand, Anthem
  • Reply 35 of 47
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    I have read Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. She's a terrible novelist.
  • Reply 36 of 47
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    How do you think about this question?



    In some cultures family and community plays a much larger role than it does in our (and in our I mean all countries that have net access and a general population able to buy macs). It is even said that in some cultures there isn´t a word for "I" (meaning that the people have a hard time even grasping the idea of the individual). How do you think about this question?




    All human persons are individuals, I believe we can assert the universality of that. In all human cultures we find society, with a varying degree of autonomy left to the individual, I believe that is also quite universal. As some societies developed they grew to recognise and even respect rights and liberties of individuals; if that is what you call ?individualism? it's obviously not universal as it's missing in many societies.

    As for the adolsecent hyper-individualist ideologies denying even the existence of societies, they are playthings for the privileged few; I shall not address them here, but obviously they aren't univeral either.



    Mind you, even in societies actively discouraging individual autonomy, the idea of the individual is often not unknown, but rather severely restricted, that is: only available to those individuals powerful enough to express their individuality, mostly at the expense of others'.

    These societies are where we see the most unrestrained individuality of a few powerful ones and the most restricted individuality of the rest of them.



    If one chooses to recognise certain rights to individual humans just because they are individual humans (as I admit is my case), then such recognition should apply to all of them, universally.



    Quote:

    But does that mean that it should be accepted that individual rights less importent there? Please make arguments for you position.



    From the perspective described in my previous paragraphe above, a reasonable answer could be no other than: no.
  • Reply 37 of 47
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Of course it depends on the definition of individual but really, psychological and scientific theory has finally come round to the view that we are at best, a conglomeration of disparate parts and conflicting opinions.



    Huh? One of the basic findings in psychology is the importance of consistency to people. People do not generally walk around with conflicting opinions. And I wouldn't base any theory of human personality on a disorder like multiple personality that many psychologists don't even think exists outside of ambitious therapists' creation.
  • Reply 38 of 47
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    People do not generally walk around with conflicting opinions.



    Sure they do. Thousands and thousands of reasonable people rationalize a total disbelief in magic and superstition while at the same time believing in a higher power that cares for them and "has a plan" for them.
  • Reply 39 of 47
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Sure they do. Thousands and thousands of reasonable people rationalize a total disbelief in magic and superstition while at the same time believing in a higher power that cares for them and "has a plan" for them.



    The key word in your post, from my point of view, is "rationalize." To them it's not inconsistent at all. Maybe they believe that the only real supernatural phenomenon come from God. Whatever their rationalization, it's not really an inconsistency.
  • Reply 40 of 47
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    The key word in your post, from my point of view, is "rationalize." To them it's not inconsistent at all. Maybe they believe that the only real supernatural phenomenon come from God. Whatever their rationalization, it's not really an inconsistency.



    Well, we can follow that train of thought all the way to "it all depends upon how the individual defines 'order,'" but the fact remains that if they have to rationalize something, it is an inconsistency.



    But I see you're point. You're talking about "negative capability" here. No time to go into detail on this. More later.
Sign In or Register to comment.