The protestant reformation essentially established the I as having precedent over the we. It preached rugged individualism that has affected both religion and politics. While the I really needed to be expressed in these arenas, it should not have taken precedence over the we. In other words, religion and politics are best as integration of I and we. Either POV seen as superior contributes to the idolatry of them vs us. Still, in the twenty first century, rugged individualism is seen as more important than the needs of those who poor or disabled.

This is true but, when you look at how large communities are now it can be difficult to help all that need help. Our minds work out towards species from individual. 1. Self 2. Family. 3 neighbors 4. Town/city and eventually species after other affiliations. It is hard enough taking care of self and family most times.


Yes, the proper (even “holy”) priority is a Lorentzian curve extending outward from oneself and diminishing as ones ability to perceive and influence diminishes. They who cannot see you have no business dictating to you, nor you to those whom you cannot see nor influence sufficiently.

The world needs the SAM Coop.

Your SAM corps suffer, being a throwback to manorism. They lack the ability to trade and dictate price from a distance, and you artificially limit their size for no reason, even if they market complex products that are rare on the market… should fMRI manufacturers be SAM Corps? Absolutely not, all humanity would suffer, as it takes more than 50 people to build all the component parts.

We end up with a very low technological cap on how advanced our technology can become. It is a incredibly stupid idea, and I think any Communist collective is better, and I openly oppose Marxism. Marxist could at least build a fMRI if they prioritized that, even if it came at a obscene cost.

And guess what, both Feudalism and Republican (not the party, the theory of government) bucks your expectations for this curve limiting an individual’s outlook, as well as having a properly functioning Fourth Estate functioning in any sort of representative democracy, not merely a republic.

It is really awesome how civilization has evolved to utterly squashed your expectations yet again James.

Reality 12
James’ Psuedo-Science 0

For us ignorami–please explain what a Sam corp is. Thank you.

Rugged individualism is seen as more important” but what is seen is not always truthful (the “we” continues to be more important even if it is not seen).

See his link for Sam coop.

The definition is too abstract to suit me. The current world situation of wars, overpopulation and pollution simply verifies the need to understand ecosystems before we ruin them. It does not take a religious estimate of our current situation to determine the need for a we perspective. It’s a matter of survival. “We must love one another or die.”

Why is death such a bad option (maybe the universe is better off without us in it)?

If you understood how the universe worked, you’d see how that’s not possible.

IMHO, the universe is never without us in it. Energy is never lost; it just changes form. And, too I believe in a creator/preserver God who reclaims, eventually, all of Its errant parts. This includes souls.
But this is a bit off topic.

Irrespective of our beliefs, we still act in a way that preserves this present physical existence.

For whom? Not necessarily so. If that were true, we’d have ecological morality.

What is the “function” of morality (to the individual)?

Why the comma?

English teachers

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.

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”).