Reformation

[Arminius]

There are no real “liberals” and no real “conservatives” - there are only liars.

[Ierrellus]

@Arminius

There are no real “liberals” and no real “conservatives” - there are only liars.

=D>

[Arminius]

Thanks.

[One_Liner]

I still fail to see how we currently don’t live in a culture of “we” but I agree that there may be a contradiction between “Individualism” and how culture actually IS.

[Arminius]

@One Liner

I still fail to see how we currently don’t live in a culture of “we” but I agree that there may be a contradiction between “Individualism” and how culture actually IS.

Oh, there is stiil a cultural “we” for us Westerners, but it is not as strong as it was in former times. Our “we” has been becoming weak.

[One_Liner]

@Arminius

@One Liner

I still fail to see how we currently don’t live in a culture of “we” but I agree that there may be a contradiction between “Individualism” and how culture actually IS.

Oh, there is stiil a cultural “we” for us Westerners, but it is not as strong as it was in former times. Our “we” has been becoming weak.

Our “we” is just as strong as it has always been (if not stronger) but we just do not value it as much.

[Ierrellus]

Looking at education in the U.S., the “we” is inferior to that of a number of other countries. The same might be said of medical care.

[Arminius]

@One Liner

@Arminius

@One Liner

I still fail to see how we currently don’t live in a culture of “we” but I agree that there may be a contradiction between “Individualism” and how culture actually IS.

Oh, there is stiil a cultural “we” for us Westerners, but it is not as strong as it was in former times. Our “we” has been becoming weak.

Our “we” is just as strong as it has always been (if not stronger) but we just do not value it as much.

But what do you mean by “our »we«” exactly? The “we” of the U.S.?

I meant the Occidental “we”.

[One_Liner]

I mean, I am in a highly interdependant relationship with others when it comes to food, clothes, a job, shelter, water, money, health, safety, security, protection, entertainment, fuel, friendship, social structures, morality, politics, power, economy, art, etc to the point where I do not authentically depend on “I” for anything (even though I value “I” far more than the “we”)

[Arminius]

Yes, that is what Martin Heidegger called “man” (“man” does not mean the same as in English here). Each one is the other, and no one is her-/himself. Being-with-one-another manages averageness, inauthenticity.

[One_Liner]

I think the “I” and “we” continue to function how they have always functioned but we have developed exaggerated views of these; which subsequently creates dysfunction as they do not behave how we expect them to behave.

[Arminius]

@One Liner

I think the “I” and “we” continue to function how they have always functioned but we have developed exaggerated views of these; which subsequently creates dysfunction as they do not behave how we expect them to behave.

Uh-huh. … Although … I am not profoundly convinced that your one liner is absolutely right here. How do "we“ expect "them“ to behave?

[One_Liner]

We have the expectation that they behave (function) according to how we view them and we never question our view when things don’t work out how we expected them to.

[Arminius]

@One Liner

We have the expectation that they behave (function) according to how we view them and we never question our view when things don’t work out how we expected them to.

There are a lot of "we’"s in your one liner, One Liner.

The Occidental culture is an “I”-culture, thus it is very much more individualistic than all other cultures. So in the Occidental culture the “I” is more considered than in all other cultures. But this does not mean that the Occidental culture does not comsider the “we” - it merely means that it considers the “I” much more than all other cultures do. And this is especially due to the reformation (protestantism) as Ierrellus and I have pointed out:

@Arminius

@Ierrellus

The protestant reformation essentially established the I as having precedent over the we. It preached rugged individualism that has affected both religion and politics.

Martin Luther was a very intelligent person. (By the way: I am not Protestant but Catholic.) Now the average global intelligence is shrinking. Thus: such an intelligent reformation or even another reformation will probably not take place in the near future or in the future at all. Individualism has to do (although not only) with intelligence, intellectualism in the right sense. This means that we are facing an authoritarian social form of anti-individualism, anti-intelligence, and anti-intellectualism. Unfortunately. They will preach the “we” more than the “I”. The “we” is important, yes, but the “I” is important as well.

@Arminius

Martin Luther appealed to the “I”. The belief or faith should be a thing of the “I” and no longer of the “we”, namely the church that exploited its believers, for example by indulgence, thus payments!

[One_Liner]

Yes, I am aware of that and I am aware of the discussion so far as its really not that complicated.

[Ierrellus]

“Things are in the saddle and ride mankind.”–Emerson. I’d say modern consumerism is partly responsible for the dumbing down of the “I” in relationship with the “we”. !980s wealth in the U.S. did not “trickle down” from rich to poor. The “I” was too concerned with possessions as a means of self-substantiation–e.g. pay over a hundred dollars for “designer” tennis shoes!
IMHO, consumerism is based on vanity, not on necessity. It is based on “I”, not on “we”.

[Ierrellus]

@One Liner

Yes, I am aware of that and I am aware of the discussion so far as its really not that complicated.

Then discuss personal need as opposed to or agreeing with societal need.

[Arminius]

@Ierrellus

“Things are in the saddle and ride mankind.”–Emerson. I’d say modern consumerism is partly responsible for the dumbing down of the “I” in relationship with the “we”. !980s wealth in the U.S. did not “trickle down” from rich to poor. The “I” was too concerned with possessions as a means of self-substantiation–e.g. pay over a hundred dollars for “designer” tennis shoes!
IMHO, consumerism is based on vanity, not on necessity. It is based on “I”, not on “we”.

Consumerism appeals to the “I” in order to get the whole “we”. So in the medium run the “we” is always more appeaöed than the “I”. If there was only one consumer, namely the “I”, then there would be almost no profit for the provider. So we - as the “we” - have to be the consumers. Consumerism wants the “we” as the consumerist society.

[Arminius]

So the rulers (regardless whether they are economical rulers or political rulers) are always trying to put the “I” and the “we” together. This does not completely but partly work. And this was why I mentioned Heidegger’s “man” (“man” does not mean the same as in English here). Each one is the other, and no one is her-/himself. Being-with-one-another manages averageness, inauthenticity. And if there is no authentic “I” but an “I”, namely the inauthentic “I”, then it is easier for the rulers to influence the whole “we”. They can use the “we” (including the “I” - the inauthentic “I” of course) for wars, for consume, … for whatever they want to.

[One_Liner]

@Ierrellus

@One Liner

Yes, I am aware of that and I am aware of the discussion so far as its really not that complicated.

Then discuss personal need as opposed to or agreeing with societal need.

Ierrellus, in your heart you feel/experience society as one entity that is competing with your needs instead of feeling/experiencing it as 7 billion personal needs that are essentially identical to yours.