Reasoning Protects The Weak Individual.

Hi. Used to be TertiaryMindset…!, then site changed, too lazy to do the retrieval thing, so, yeah.

My Belief: The individual is real, the community is not(in that the individual can not exist within it). We all exist in our own universes which are set on the fulcrum of our perspectives. Upon this fulcrum balances existance. On one side is individuality, on the other is the community.
One perspective creates one individual universe, and when multiple individual universes share perspective on at least one piece of information they group together like grouping on a venn diagram, and create a communal universe based on the fulcrum of that piece of information.
However, the second universe(communal) is imaginary, because two perspectives cannot occupy the same space and time.
What creates this imaginary universe is the reasoning of a person who is weak(in any sense, because, the weak are the weak, and the strong are the strong, it’s not a matter of righteousness, for anyone who might have thought that that is what I’m saying) in their individuality and use reason as a way of fooling themselves into thinking that other perspectives can exist in the same space and time as them. They do this in order to try build an ego, that is fragile due to the person’s weakness, through a reasoning that ‘‘others share my perspective and that means I must be right, and therefore not weak’’. Because of this use of reasoning, and loss of individuality to a community that has an unknowing head that is indeed an individual, though only by the chance of their individuality’s strength.
When this transformation through reasoning occurs, reason becomes a wall between individuality and community protecting the person from their weakness as an individual, and they will remain there unless environmental changes rearrange what is strong and weak.

What do you think? I like how everyone is wrong and everyone is right in this microcosm of the world of ideas that is the discussion board.

Opinions. (And yes, ‘‘shit’’ is an opinion, though not the prevered kind.)

Hey, I’ve always kinda thought something like this, although I probably am not fully understanding your statement.

I always thought that the to every living person, the world, life, does revolve around them. Everything they know, believe, see, hear, whatever, it’s all theirs. That’s why I think people are always egocentric, because in reality, it’s true. Each person, has a story, to that person that story is the main focus of his/her life.

And about the perspective thing, I also agree. Right now, on the computer, I get only what I can think, what I can see. No two perspectives can interfere.

Oh, and this kind of argument doesn’t work against teachers, unfortunately.

I think you understood what I meant.

That’s true about teachers because the educational system is a branch of the communal society.

I’m a believer in making as many decicions as one can from a place that is as close as one can get to a pure individuality. Anything else is a compromise, and compromise on individuality leaves less of you to be gone when you die.

Both community (herd), and the individual are real, the community, less so, however. Christianity is probably the best analogy for the type of community you describe, where the weak feel strength through belonging to an “elect”, that partakes of a higher power, devalues unbelievers, and, any individuals who stand apart from it.

A danger to the type of individual you describe is solipsism. Our ideas and thoughts probably developed communally, and, might ultimately grow moribund without external stimuli. I think the truly gifted individual does make the most important contributions to our species, however, despite the high value the community places on cooperation.

I think if you think about the outward forces, which are manifest to “the individual”, are their own, then “community” probably does appear to be an egotistical fantasy. However, looking at the inward forces, which affect “the individual” both conciously and subconciously, muddies the waters significantly. Moreover, if we realise that all outward forces are only the inward forces of another, and vice versa, then the idea of “community” as something separate from “the individual” needs clarification.

Try some Leibniz.

Everyone is the king of “their world” but everyone is a fool in “The world”

Would Nietzsche have made any contribution to the species had the herd not decided he was a gifted genius?

Everyone makes a contribution to the species, positive, negative or indifferent. Whether they are severely mentally disabled or genius. They have no choice because they are the species. And it isn’t definite which of those two classes makes what kind of contribution.

Are you trying to say that Nietzsche has made a positive contribution?

How can you possibly say that Nietzsche has made a positive contribution?
The point of survival of the fittest is that you can’t study for the final exam, and if you pass, it’s near impossible to understand why.

Oh, and what’s the difference between a genius and a gifted genius?
Did the former have to work for it?
I smell a NietzscheFanClub member.

Sure, I agree with you (and Jean-Paul Sartre)there . The post I was responding to, however, referred to the magnitude of contribution, so I was inquiring into the essence of a “large contribution.”

I wasn’t evaluating Nietzsche’s contribution there, although I personally believe he has made a valued and positive contribution to both philosophy and the human species.

  • haha - maybe the former did have to work his ass off. but seriously, no, i didn’t mean to imply a distinction.

  • haha, me? Nah… I’m already in the Heidegger fanclub. Don’t want to spread myself too thin. :slight_smile:

:confused: I’ve never read Jean-Paul Sartre. I don’t read at all, except for the odd crappy sci-fi fantasy. Just in case you thought I was trying to pull a fast one.
Someone always beats you to the idea, which is comforting :slight_smile: .

Survival of the fattest is Darwin.

I didn’t say gifted genius , I said gifted individual, in consonance with the thread starters theme, of individual vs. community.

Individuals such as Marx and Einstein (and yes Nietzsche) changed, and, or created the world we live in today. Without them, we would live in a very different world, nes pas. These individuals make a greater impact on our daily lives than you or I.

I am the thread starter.

Radiohead629 said ‘‘gifted genius’’, I was responding to him.

How can something be less real?

Which one is it?
Contributed to our species or to our daily lives, because these are very different things.

I agree with daily lives, but not species. You cannot contribute to species. The only thing that can affect species is evolution and natural selection. Contribute does not apply to species.

Our daily lives as a species.

:laughing: :smiley:

Herbert Spencer, really…