If a society is without a collective intelligence, how can a marjority rule and how can i as a indervidual be expected to overide my own intelligence for that of a marjority.
We already do pretty much have a collective intelligence. It has to do with our primitive us vs. them mentality. In order for that to work we routinely have to be willing to lose ourselves within a larger group. So you get cultures, counter-cultures and small sub-groups within each.
Try going to a rock concert, or a political rally. You can quite clearly see that beyond the leader, there is no real individuality beyond the shared on of the group. It’s pretty cool, actually.
someone didn’t do their homework…
That makes a lot of sense “i think”
So intelligence flows through my brain, rather than coming from it making me already part of some sub groupe that up until this point in my life i have been unaware of
All these year’s of people trying to make resposeable for my actions are wrong.
Hi Mullfa. Welcome to ILP.
You’re not going to find a lot of people around these parts very sympathetic to the concept of individualism. Most here seem to hold in contempt the mass of men, and feel strongly that the enlightened, wise ones among us should determine the proper course of our lives. People don’t know what’s good for them, you see.
Of course the idea is to lend credence to this concept of tethering people to the ideals of others by wrapping it up in the guise of majority-ism. Makes it more palatable. Majorities can’t be wrong after all, can they?
Jerry,
Individualism is just as much an imposed, fascistic philosophy as any other. What if I don’t want to be an individual with subjective beliefs?
Tough, because you are, because I say so
Same excuse used by communists, socialists, fascists, monarchists…
First of all, yes, tough. You are.
But if you’re not comfortable with what you really are, then find others who share your discomfort, lose your individuality, and latch onto your “objective” beliefs.
There. Easy-peasy.
I’m not in favor of imposing individualism.
(That’s the difference, you see, from communism, socialism, fascism, and monarchs).
Here we see the massive contradiction in your beliefs. You believe that ‘people are individual with subject beliefs’ is an objective truth, is ‘really’ true. You’ve just demonstrated this. I don’t mean to be confrontational but I’ve got you…
This is precisely what you don’t grasp, that believing in individual freedom and subjectivity is believing what others say. No message is propagated more often than the one about ‘making up your own mind’, the notion of individual freedom is just as enslaving as (for example) the notion of racial inferiority.
Hardly…
If I went around demanding, subjectively, that everyone should wear green jackets would you support the law in stopping me from enforcing this policy? Yes, of course you would. Why? Because you believe that others shouldn’t be forced to do as I say. i.e. you are in favour of forcing me to act in certain ways and not act in certain ways, just like any other political philosophy.
It’s okay to be confrontational, SIATD. It’s just that you and I have already been through this elsewhere.
As we already covered, I do happen to believe in one objective idea, and that is the idea that the way people ought to live their lives is subjective. That explains philosophy boards. That explains the conversation you and I are having.
But that’s neither here nor there, because I’m even willing to admit, for the sake of these kinds of discussions, that this belief is subjective. I’m willing to admit that allowing people to live as free individuals is a subjective value.
As I have pointed out ad nauseum, the difference is that my subjective value doesn’t require force to sustain itself except in a defensive measure. Collectivism, by contrast, clearly does. Your idea of forcing everybody to wear green jackets is offensive (in more ways than one). My stopping you is defensive.
As I have also pointed out, a belief that force is somehow better if used defensively rather than offensively, is also a subjective value. I happen to hold that value but have no interest in arguing its morality or nobility.
So you haven’t “got me.” I have confessed.
Why won’t others do the same?, is my question. Admit that you’re in favor of systems that require offensive force in order to make the citizens behave in accordance with your subjective values. And further admit that it’s your value that this kind of force is better than defensive force. Admit that your value system regards coming into my home and making me do something (in the name of the collective majority) as somehow better than me defending my home from intrusion.
C’mon. It’s good for the soul you know.
(Face it SIATD, I’m a lost cause. A hopeless case. What, really, can be done with Jerry?)
? So why has the collective failed me
?Why as a child was i squwas’ed by people in authority.
?Why as a child did the collective judge me by my parents actions
?Why should i just sit in a corner where the collective can’t see me and suffer in silence.
The only answer i can see is that colletive dosent care about everyone.
Will you follow the collective to hell if thats where it leads.
And by rejecting one collective (which you view as the only one) you’ve already taken steps towards another one. Have you ever spoken to Emo-kids or other sub-culture groups whose sole banner is ‘not like everybody else’? In turn, these people form into a group and all of a sudden start to all look and act the same. Different meme, same old shit.
Also, the collective doesn’t exist to serve the individual, so how can it ‘fail’ you if it is indifferent to your existence? You are a very replacable cog in a machine much bigger than yourself. The idea then, is to find a machine in which your contribution will be appreciated. Say what you will about PoR and other unfortunate individuals like him, but at least they have a community.
So, identify your interests and find a community that is in line with those. The world is bigger than any of us, so we’ve got to make peace with it. Once you’ve accomplished that, then you can go about changing the old order. This is what is meant by, “Simply by being a good parent and friend I am participating in government.”
At least it is majority rule, think dictatorship. However, if really ticked regarding a Western govenment, I would, as have a few other US citizens regarding Wbya. Many fled Nazi Germany during Hitler, you are free to do so.
If too disgusted, leave, I sure as hell would.
With regards,
aspacia 
Gosh, I hope I am not one of those you believe follows the herd 
Generally, most humans are good, it only takes 1% to fuck up the good, this is especially true of the 1% or less of Muslim fanatics.
What bugs me is those who profess superiority, regardless of ethnicity or religion.
Who the fuck really knows truth? Give me facts.
With regards,
aspacia
Hi Aspacia. No I don’t think that about you at all.
When I said “Most here seem to hold in contempt the mass of men, and feel strongly that the enlightened, wise ones among us should determine the proper course of our lives,” I wasn’t referring to me as being one of the “most.” I was in fact contrasting my own position with this prevailing attitude. “Enlightened, wise ones” was meant facetiously.
I, too, believe most people are good. I believe in the mass of men. I am one of the few here who do.
1 why is the collective willing to acknowledge sub groupes but not a individual.
2Thats false, society brings me into this world it now has the responseabilty to ensure i get equality.
If the collective dosent want to act as my father then it has no right to enforce rules upon me.
3 How can i do that when the collective is showing me that its not a good parent.
1 why is the collective willing to acknowledge sub groupes but not a individual.
Because sub-groups make themselves known. An individual can’t do that without forming a cadre around them. A man isolated is a pathetic institution, but in a group they can accomplish great things.
2Thats false, society brings me into this world it now has the responseabilty to ensure i get equality.
If the collective dosent want to act as my father then it has no right to enforce rules upon me.
Society isn’t anyone’s parent. They aren’t responsible for you in any way, because you are insignificant. While our person is shaped by society and our personal connections, they don’t owe us. A lathe doesn’t owe a bat anything. It is only through interactions with other people that we become something worth aknowledging.
3 How can i do that when the collective is showing me that its not a good parent.
Again, which society? It isn’t a monolithic institution. You are placing blame in the wrong area. To be sure, there is a great deal wrong with society, so do something to change it rather than denying the formative power society has on us while simultaneously blaming it.
Ok you say that soicety is no ones parent, but when society is laying down rules before me in order to protect its people, then that is the role that they are perfoming.
Actions are louder than words.
I’m a member of a society i abide by the rules in return i expect equality, not repression and poverty
If my blame is misplaced, where should i redirect it.
Also if i’m insignificant to society and society classes me as insingnificant why preach, why educate and why have laws.
It’s not like my actions matter to them.
Sorry, society just cant view me as ingsingificant, actions are speaking louder than words again
I sure do not want to be your parent, neither do most individuals in the collective. We want you to have equality and support laws for this, but it is your parents job to raise you.
With regards,
aspacia
Either i’m a dependent of society or independent of it, i really don’t care which one i am
society is confuseing me as to which one i am
For example if i’m a dependent of society i’m asking dad (eg,our goverment) as to why some of my brothers are going wihtout food why dad himself is haveing $10.000.00 dinners.
So now if i’m independent (“what am i thinking, independence is just a tool dad uses to shut me up so the members of the collective can continue to blame there brother for his starvation”)
Society isn’t a binary function, I think that’s your mistake.
It starts with the family. Families or pseudo-families (cliques, cults, gangs, ect) interact with each other, some banding together, some in opposition. The friction between them further polarizes groups.
Lay on top of that super-familial organizations, like large-scale organized religion, nationality, ethnicity/race, statism/patriotism, and so on, and you have reactions that mirror the small ones.
An individual is not a societal unit, that’s why an individual doesn’t work within the larger collective of the state (which is what you mean by collectivism).
Now, does the government owe a family something? I believe that they do, which is why they provide basic amenities, such as roads, sewers, electrical connections, telephone connections, schools, all the basic infrastructure we need. It then relies, either rightly or not, on smaller societal sub-units to fill in the gaps. Companies (a huge pseudo-family. Usually a rather abusive one) are the primary fillers of those gaps.