The we is far more important than the I (they are only equal when we feel a threat).
Depends on …
Your body, for example, is exclusively your body, isn’t it?
Another example: If you are the leader or an inventor of a certain group, then your “I” is and has to be a bit more important than´the “we”, because your skills are a bit more based on your genetic “I” than on the social “we” (the group), and the group has to and usually does accept that you are one of those whose “I” is more important than the group itself (the “we”). In other words: A group (regardless which one) needs leading “I’s”, inventing “I’s”, … and so on.
But there are also examples that show us that the “we” is more important than the “I”. If you are, for example, a part of a super-organism, then your “I” is less important than the “we” (the super-organism). But from the point of view of the super-organism like the church or Goldman Sachs the “we” is perhaps more the “I” than the “we” again.
We have to decide from what point of view we are linguistically and philosophically judging - for example: more like Max Stirner (“I”) or more like Karl Marx (“we”).
Your body was given to you because of the kindness of “at least” two other people (you had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with its creation or even its sustenance when you were a baby).
So you are saying that your body is the body of your parents?
At what precise moment did it become an independent (exclusive) entity?
I asked first. So please answer my question before I answer your question.
I already answered your question.
I’d guess that the development of a child from birth to adulthood encompasses an I that must become also a we. From the protestant reformation down to now, the process seems to have been historically reversed. Currently, both politics and religion are in turmoil over I vs we.
A sane resolution to these problems would be I and we as seen as equally important. That’s not the way things are now. This is why I think Western civilization is in its adolescence.
No. At least not precisely enough.
You made an assertion without anything to back it up and so precision is not necessary (non precise refutation is allowed in such circumstances).
I don’t think religion or politics are in turmoil or at least I don’t see any evidence of this turmoil outside of specific individuals.
I can guarantee you, that, genetically resp. biologically, the „birth“ of the “I” is the fertilization.
That does not make it an exclusive “I” independent of the “we”.
It does. Note that I said: “genetically resp. biologically”.
So the “I” you talk about is free from outside control, is not subject to another’s authority and/or doesn’t depend on another for livelihood or sustanance (making it independent).
Like I said: “genetically resp. biologically”. Yes.
Genetically, (biologically), the I is always an aspect of the we. It is independent to some extent from a self POV; but even that has we dependency to some extent. My I is a product of shared genetic and environmental influences. There exists no such animal as an isolate self.
Your genetic code and program is your genetic code and program and only your genetic code and program.
No. It came from my parents, then developed toward its own.
No. I am saying the genetic code is your genetic code, and you are saying your genetic code is the code of your parents, and that is false, because your parents have two different genetic codes, and your genetic code is even then your genetic code (namely because of the recombination), if your parents were twins. Genetically (biologically) there is indeed individuality. When the fertilization has happened, then the recombination takes place, and the result is never the same result that your parents got at their fertilizations. Your genetic code is indeed inidividual. Each genetic code is an indivdual one. That is what I am saying, and it is true.
When you say to an geneticist (biologist) that your genetic code is not yours but that of your parents, then they will laugh at you. A recombined genetic code has it roots in two other genetic codes, that is right, but that does not mean that it is the same genetic code. It is a different one.
You are confusing genetics/biology with sociology/psychology.
Evolution is based on variation (mutation included), reproduction, and reproduction interest (formerly known as “selection”). No genetic code is the gentic code of the parents, othrwise there would be no eveolution.