Individualism is stupid

[Secondhand Revenant]

The fact that a collective is made up of individuals doesn't mean it isn't a collective.

Also hard to take it seriously if you ask me 'how so' when I say that an action can benefit an individual over society. Example, murdering people you don't like. Easy.

I did not say that the collective did not exist. I said that a distinct, and often oppositional, line between the two, the individual and the collective, was a false dichotomy.

Too bad it demonstrably is not.

 

[R Man]

The fact that a collective is made up of individuals doesn't mean it isn't a collective.

Also hard to take it seriously if you ask me 'how so' when I say that an action can benefit an individual over society. Example, murdering people you don't like. Easy.

I did not say that the collective did not exist. I said that a distinct, and often oppositional, line between the two, the individual and the collective, was a false dichotomy.

Too bad it demonstrably is not.

Then demonstrate it.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

The fact that a collective is made up of individuals doesn't mean it isn't a collective.

Also hard to take it seriously if you ask me 'how so' when I say that an action can benefit an individual over society. Example, murdering people you don't like. Easy.

I did not say that the collective did not exist. I said that a distinct, and often oppositional, line between the two, the individual and the collective, was a false dichotomy.

Too bad it demonstrably is not.

Then demonstrate it.

I gave an example. You ignored it.

 

[R Man]

I gave an example. You ignored it.

Because it was not an example. It proved nothing.

What actually is your argument?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I gave an example. You ignored it.

Because it was not an example. It proved nothing.

What actually is your argument?

It showed an example of an individual versus society. Saying nuh uh in response is worthless.

 

[R Man]

It showed an example of an individual versus society. Saying nuh uh in response is worthless.

No it did not. Think about it, can you murder someone, without killing an individual? You cannot, pretty much by definition. Sure, it affects society too, but that is part of my point.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue, or if you have actually understood what I am arguing. What do you think I am saying?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It showed an example of an individual versus society. Saying nuh uh in response is worthless.

No it did not. Think about it, can you murder someone, without killing an individual? You cannot, pretty much by definition. Sure, it affects society too, but that is part of my point.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue, or if you have actually understood what I am arguing. What do you think I am saying?

That does not magically make it not a matter of an individual vs society. You're suggesting it is mutually exclusive. It isn't.

You said individual vs collective is a false dichotomy. It certainly can be in contexts but that's hardly always true.

 

[R Man]

That does not magically make it not a matter of an individual vs society. You're suggesting it is mutually exclusive. It isn't.

You said individual vs collective is a false dichotomy. It certainly can be in contexts but that's hardly always true.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Almost all my responses have been relating the two together, suggesting the complete opposite of mutually exclusive. What about this is unclear?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

That does not magically make it not a matter of an individual vs society. You're suggesting it is mutually exclusive. It isn't.

You said individual vs collective is a false dichotomy. It certainly can be in contexts but that's hardly always true.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Almost all my responses have been relating the two together, suggesting the complete opposite of mutually exclusive. What about this is unclear?

That it affects individuals doesn't mean it can't be a matter of individual vs society

 

[R Man]

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Almost all my responses have been relating the two together, suggesting the complete opposite of mutually exclusive. What about this is unclear?

That it affects individuals doesn't mean it can't be a matter of individual vs society[/quote]

And this is the false dichotomy I was arguing against. You can look at events/interactions from an individual vs. society perspective. However, this does not mean that individuals are not affected by such actions, just because you choose to ignore it.

Equally, you could look at something like a murder solely from an individual v individual perspective ignoring the impact on society.

Either way, restricting your perspective does not give a complete picture of how these 'interactions' actually occur/play out in reality. The fact that you can ignore it does not disprove the false dichotomy. If anything, it proves my point. You even admit it. Something like murder does affect individuals, you have merely chosen to ignore that aspect of the interaction.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Almost all my responses have been relating the two together, suggesting the complete opposite of mutually exclusive. What about this is unclear?

That it affects individuals doesn't mean it can't be a matter of individual vs society

And this is the false dichotomy I was arguing against. You can look at events/interactions from an individual vs. society perspective. However, this does not mean that individuals are not affected by such actions, just because you choose to ignore it.

Equally, you could look at something like a murder solely from an individual v individual perspective ignoring the impact on society.

Either way, restricting your perspective does not give a complete picture of how these 'interactions' actually occur/play out in reality. The fact that you can ignore it does not disprove the false dichotomy. If anything, it proves my point. You even admit it. Something like murder does affect individuals, you have merely chosen to ignore that aspect of the interaction.

So effectively you're arguing against a limit no one else imposed and you created from thin air to argue against.

 

[happyninja42]

I want to care about what other people think but everyone keeps telling me to stop caring about what other people think.

It all depends on the context of when you say "care what people think". Everyone cares what other people think to some degree. What people usually mean when they say that is to not let your own personal self worth/image, be determined by what someone else thinks. In other words, just because someone else thinks you are a piece of shit, doesn't mean you should just agree, because that's their opinion of you.

But I'm not really capable of that level of anti-social behaviour.

.....that is in no way anti-social behavior. It's having a self-determined personal identity, rather than one based on other people's incomplete opinions.

I like adapting to other people, I'm quite proud of my ability to do so; I know several autistic people who couldn't even if they wanted to and it's causing them a lot of personal grief.

That's something entirely different. That's called normal behavior. Everyone "adapts" based on who they are around in social situations. That isn't anything unique, that's just one of the traits of a social animal. If you are at a party, you tend to adopt a more outgoing, chatty, talkative demeanor. When you are with a group of people at a book club, you adopt a different way of behaving. And besides, you aren't rewriting your personal identity when you do that, you are just expressing a different aspect of your personality more strongly than another.

Everyone has a multitude of personality traits that make them up. Even introverts have an outgoing side, though they might not be comfortable in expressing it. And the most outgoing party hound also has a quite, reflective side. Changing your mood/behavior to the situation isn't anything magical or bizarre, it's just human interaction.

 

[R Man]

So effectively you're arguing against a limit no one else imposed and you created from thin air to argue against.

I think it is quite clear that you have little idea of what I was arguing or the grasp on the implications of your own argument. I was, originally, noting that there was a false dichotomy, as was implied in some of the earlier comments, rather than an argument against a specific position. You then came in with a counter claim, followed by an example which you presented as a situation where there was just such a dichotomy. This would mean that you created the argument, and I was therefore, responding to the limit you yourself had imposed.

Plus, the example was one of the worst examples to try to prove it. Aside from the highly personal nature of murder, even the systems around it are highly influenced by individual personalities and actions. Do I need to explain how such things affect the judicial system? If anything, you have proved my point, as the only way you can make your point is to actively ignore the full complexities of the relationship between individuals and society, thus creating the false dichotomy.

 

[Frankster]

Heh, i totally get being annoyed by the "stop caring about what other people think" policing, that is a mantra that is often repeated but when you have difficulty relating to that, puts one in an awkward position+makes you feel like a weirdo.

Anyways regarding individualism vs collectivism...
I'd have to think about that, as much as i can get annoyed by some aspects of western individualism such as people feeling they are entitled to act however they want without caring about repercussions on others..
On other hand, i'm not sure i'd want to follow chinese or japanese models which would be the most collectivist countries i know of. Even clean and beautiful japan, has some societal quirks i can't help but feel i'd be bothered by if i was a citizen there.
But then again maybe im just more used to the evil i know and fearful of the one i don't :/
Either way would be nice to have a happy medium that doesn't go to either of these extremes.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

So effectively you're arguing against a limit no one else imposed and you created from thin air to argue against.

I think it is quite clear that you have little idea of what I was arguing or the grasp on the implications of your own argument. I was, originally, noting that there was a false dichotomy, as was implied in some of the earlier comments, rather than an argument against a specific position. You then came in with a counter claim, followed by an example which you presented as a situation where there was just such a dichotomy. This would mean that you created the argument, and I was therefore, responding to the limit you yourself had imposed.

Plus, the example was one of the worst examples to try to prove it. Aside from the highly personal nature of murder, even the systems around it are highly influenced by individual personalities and actions. Do I need to explain how such things affect the judicial system? If anything, you have proved my point, as the only way you can make your point is to actively ignore the full complexities of the relationship between individuals and society, thus creating the false dichotomy.

This is very simple to comprehend. To say there is a conflict between two things does not say it is exclusively the only conflict.

 

[R Man]

This is very simple to comprehend. To say there is a conflict between two things does not say it is exclusively the only conflict.

This supports your point how?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

This is very simple to comprehend. To say there is a conflict between two things does not say it is exclusively the only conflict.

This supports your point how?

Someone saying there is a conflict between the two is not someone declaring a dichotomy. You're the one imagining someone else declaring the exclusivity.

 

[R Man]

Someone saying there is a conflict between the two is not someone declaring a dichotomy. You're the one imagining someone else declaring the exclusivity.

Do I need to repeat my earlier post? Very well, I will explain. The exclusivity I was responding to was not an argument, merely a point I wanted to establish in response to the implicit dichotomy present in the opening few posts. My responses to you are not really arguing that you believe such a thing. That there is conflict between society and individuals as currently defined, I do not doubt. However, that was not the point of the comment. What I'm really trying to do is use your example to show why such an oppositional dichotomy makes no sense. One can indeed take a society vs. individual perspective. But to do so would leave out vast amounts of information as to render such an analysis somewhat suspect and incomplete.

Take your example of a murder. You presented it as an example of individual vs. collective. However, I, and I suspect many other people, would think of it as a individual vs. individual situation. By this I do not mean that society has no stake in such an event. My point is that the two are so highly intertwined and integrated, that at a certain point they become inseparable. And of course vice-versa.

This level of integration is why your example does not work. The only way to look at it from a society vs. individual perspective is to use the dichotomy that I was warning against.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Do I need to repeat my earlier post? Very well, I will explain. The exclusivity I was responding to was not an argument, merely a point I wanted to establish in response to the implicit dichotomy present in the opening few posts. My responses to you are not really arguing that you believe such a thing. That there is conflict between society and individuals as currently defined, I do not doubt. However, that was not the point of the comment. What I'm really trying to do is use your example to show why such an oppositional dichotomy makes no sense. One can indeed take a society vs. individual perspective. But to do so would leave out vast amounts of information as to render such an analysis somewhat suspect and incomplete.

Take your example of a murder. You presented it as an example of individual vs. collective. However, I, and I suspect many other people, would think of it as a individual vs. individual situation. By this I do not mean that society has no stake in such an event. My point is that the two are so highly intertwined and integrated, that at a certain point they become inseparable. And of course vice-versa.

This level of integration is why your example does not work. The only way to look at it from a society vs. individual perspective is to use the dichotomy that I was warning against.

So you're warning against people missing something just because they didn't explicitly mention it. You do you I guess.

 

[R Man]

So you're warning against people missing something just because they didn't explicitly mention it. You do you I guess.

Leaving aside the fact that this hole thing happened because you had a problem with a single off-had comment.