It depends on. In our culture the "I“ is more inportant than in others buit is nevertheless embedded in the "we“ (that has become weaker and weaker).
"Common opinions“ or the inauthentic “I” of everybody of the "we“.
Is there such a thing as an authentic “I”?
I think our culture perceives “I” as more important than others but that perception isn’t necessarily an accurate representation of how the “I” is actually positioned in our culture.
“No man is an island…”—Donne, Meditation 17. There are the "we"s of family, friends, clan, club, nation., etc. But what Donne is getting at is the fact that all I’s go though trials, temptations and successes because we are all human–all in the same boat whether or not the boat sinks or floats. Isolation is sometimes necessary for one to repair from “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. But from the outward extension of the self come the possibilities of empathy and compassion–the only medicine for a sick world of us vs them.
Naturally yes (we already talked about that), but culturally perhaps no or, if yes, merely few.
In the Mesopotamian or Sumerian culture the “I” did not matter much, in the Egyptian culture the “I” did not matter much, in the Chinese culture the “I” did not and does not matter much, in the Indian culture the “I” did not and does not matter much, in the Apollinian (Greek-Roman) culture the “I” did not matter much, in the Old-South-and-Middle-American culture the “I” did not matter much, in the Arabic/Islamic culture the “I” did not and does not matter much. It was and is only the Faustian Occidental culture where the “I” did and does matter much (at least relatively to all other cultures).
Hello Ierrellus
No man is an island. We are already born and depend upon a family, maybe a clan, or tribe, that secures our survival for our sake and for their sake, in other words for the “we” that unites the two. The problem is that that “we” becomes “us” next to a “them”, which is built, as you would expect, by another “we”. That we are human does not mean that we are all in the same boat. The existence of “we” does not depend on the condition that we are all on the same boat. rom “we” to “all” there is a jump that has to be made, and while some have made it, not everyone has.
That said, back to the our subject of the reformation, I would say that the subject is Christianity. Luther and Calvin were able to raise the “I” because Christianity lacked an “all”. The used as their inspiration passages of the Bible that reflected this all-too-human need for hierarchy. The reality that we witness as human beings is that we are not all equal in every respect. Distinctions can be made. Love depends on those distinctions we make. The “I” always longs for a “we” meaningfully because there is no “all”. Empathy and compassion do not depend on the elimination of an us/them distinction, quite the opposite, it depends on the strength of such distinctions because empathy and compassion begin exactly with the distinction of an Other, the not-me for whom you can react, then, with compassion, which means suffering-with, next to the Other. What can happen is the expansion of our idea of “we”, or “us”, so that that person is absorbed into my identity in some way, but that does not require the abolition of us/them because it happens when there is something good that we wish to identify with, suffer-with, feel-with, a redeemable feature in the Other that echoes within. That is not always going to be the case. Empathy and compassion are not the only possible reactions another person can elicit in us. We can feel disgust at a child molester who remains therefore “them” just as we develop the “us” with “their” victim.
Not saying that Donne had it entirely wrong, but that the us/them distinction is defendable.
It does not matter much in our current culture either but we just think it matters which then results in a mismatch between what we perceive and what is.
What was this authentic “I” we talked about as I forgot (been hectic at work in the last couple of weeks).
Currently in the U.S. there remains a conflict between the ideal of a rugged individual who raises himself up by his own bootstraps and the reality of individuals who, maybe through no fault of their own, have no boots. Persons on welfare are seen as inferior to those who are not and are seen as undeserving of the “hand out” that allows them to survive. This is the us vs them to which I was referring.
Parody-- A man had been beaten by thieves, robbed and left in a ditch to die. A religious traveler, discovering the man, asked him, "Are you right with God? You must not be to be in your present situation. " And he rode on.
A politician found the man and asked, “Where do you work? How do I know that you did not deserve this fate?” And he rode on.
A spiritual person found the man, took him to a lodging and made sure he was fed and that his wounds were taken care of. He said to the man, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”
Hearing of the spiritual man’s deed, some people called him a bleeding heart liberal; some called him a socialist or communist. He heard without listening because he had done that which was in his nature to do.
Ciao Ierrellus
I do not believe that the condition of poverty is automatically indicative of the character of a person, or their value. Just as I would not automatically see them as inferior to me, I also, out of respect for them and myself, see them, automatically (on the condition of their poverty) as equal to me. Government welfare is objectionable because it is also not concerned with the merit of the person, but a mere number. The system can be and has been abused, even if by a minority (which is debatable). The issue is that age-old problem of the free-loader, those who live as parasites. Unfortunately the phenomenon is possible fo our species. Someone, while naturally endowed to perform, or having “boots” if you will, might still seek the path of least resistance, less work, while accepting mere survival as his or her norm. That betrays the spirit in which the social programs were created. Such freeloaders are indeed inferior and undeserving. Now, that is not to say that the majority using social programs to survive are undeserving, but that others do not which means that desert has to be determined, just as we assign the us/them distinction. Those that need and use the programs are seen as part of “us” while those that abuse the programs are seen as “them”. In the end I do not believe that even opponents of social programs believe that no one is deserving of a hand out. For example some oppose government run social programs in favor of church-run social programs, so it is wrong to malign the opponents of social programs as lacking in empathy or compassion. Some might, but certainly not all.
I would be careful, if I was you, in invoking “nature” in your discourse because you only actually know your own nature and not the nature of every single person, so that, for example, those that passed the injured traveler could very well have acted according to their own nature. Just as you couldn’t be judged for doing what was in your nature to do, so too those that acted differently, but again, according to their own nature. This would actually set, in an objective manner, a true us/them distinction and also remove the possibility of blame or merit from your discourse.
So any God who judges humans could just note that they have a carnal nature, that they are what they are, which puts them beyond moral judgment.
I once dated a lady in Atlanta, who worked for the welfare system. She saw the freeloaders as one apple spoils the barrel. That welfare recipients live in shacks, but drive Cadillacs is a myth.
I don’t know where you live, Omar, but up here in Ohio the anti-welfare folks are loud and many.
The Horatio Alger lie that anyone in America can “raise himself up by his own bootstraps” and can go “from rags to riches” is still a popular belief.
The Great American Dream was, and always will be, clever propaganda for stupid people.
It matters much more in our culture than it matters in all other cultures of the whole history.
Just read the corresponding posts again and look at the following chart.
Other middle or large collective forms are - for example - "gangs“, churches, states, cooperations/companies (super-organisms / organisation-systems).
Well, Ierrellus, to be quite honest, I have experienced many freeloaders and not where you might expect them. For example, El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico wrote a song about this guy that brags “Recibiendo la pension por loco, de loco yo no tengo 'na, oiste!” In English, “Getting a pension (a handout) for being mentally ill, but of mental illness I have nothing”. In the military many retirees beg me to go to the VA to get examined. I say: “There is nothing wrong with me” and they reply that I don’t have to tell them that and to go anyway to see if I can “score” a level of disability. That welfare recipients spend their stipends in other than what is necessary to survive is not necessarily common but it is also NOT a myth. In Puerto Rico where a great number of people use federal hand-outs not as a tie-me over but as a pretty much permanent thing. Worse, there is little incentive to get off the welfare pot. (economist.com/node/6980051). The problem of the welfare state is that it depends on a portion of the population agreeing to pay for the needs of another. Is there a problem when a person with no legs ask for a hand-out? Probably not, but people using the handouts may not need it and that is a problem. Eventually the program suffers because there is just so much that you can ask before the givers feel the pinch and start to protect themselves. In Puerto Rico this has led to a massive exodus since 2006 that culminated in the territory defaulting on their debt.
The most compelling argument, for me, against your argument here is that people risk their lives crossing the dessert in the southern border or the Mona strait near the west coast of Puerto Rico to often do the jobs that go unclaimed by people who qualify for welfare. It is usually them, who still believe in the old bootstraps theory, that advance in their second generation for example (pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/ … americans/) while those that have transitioned to the belief that welfare is their human right will probably remain, as I consider them, a victim of a system that is prone to abuse.
Everything should be in the right measure. I don’t believe that either extreme is correct. I believe that there should be hand-outs, but I am against a free hand-out because I believe success follows work and self sacrifice. Sure, there are exceptions, but they could also serve as proof of the rule.
We think it matters but our thinking is wrong.
Omar,
While I agree that welfare fraud must be addressed, I’m also aware of the current myth of underserving recipients. Many men become absentee husbands so that, despite their inability to find work, their wives and children can get government assistance. Of the absent husbands–we get back to the lie that anyone in the US can make a decent living, i.e, a living that can feed and clothe the children.
No. Your thinking is wrong. Sorry.
What you think is that everything is equal. You are an egalitarianist who has forgotten that egalitarianism is also a phenomenon that is based on individualism, thus on Occidental developments like the Lutheran reformation (protestantism) as a revolution of the “I”. There has always been more “I” in the culture of the Occident than in all other cultures. Even the current “human rights” are based on this typical Occidental issue, and note: I am not judging here - I am talking about facts.