The individual In The Midst Of Collective Government.

[Joker]

There are some who say that individualism is a fantasy or that it has never existed in history where instead whole governments along with the consensus of what we call the collective, rules and overrides individual persons in the decision making of their entire lives.

These same people outright declare that individualism doesn’t exist and that such notions should be thrown out on the ship wrecked rubble of other mythologies.

I however am a firm believer that individualism does exist but I also admit at the same time that whole governments along with the consensus of other people repress many individual emotions, instincts and sentiments.

What are other people’s perception on individualism?

Throughout the history of civilization we can clearly see repression of individuals where revolt, mayhem and rebellion becomes common practice of people throughout the ages.

By these observations I sometimes wonder to myself if individualism is compatible within governmental spheres and fanatical consensus of whole entire collectives of group thinking.

[realunoriginal]

I believe individualism is an extremely socio-cultural concept. America is very ‘individualistic’ and ‘independent’ in regards to each single citizen.

On the other hand, if you visit China or study it, then you will quickly learn that our ideas of individualism quickly blur into absurdity. As such, Asian societies and communities are much more ‘connected’ to one another way that can be seen as ‘dependent’. Rather than individual people, the Asian mindset is one of ‘families’. ‘One’ cannot be separated from their family nor from their society…

It’s pretty damn relative.

[Joker]

I don’t think it can be called a socio cultural concept considering that the basic notion that everyone is striving for in life is self preservation.

Self preservation naturally leads to individualism.

I am a bit familiar with communities in Asia but their willingness to put the collective over their own selves I have always thought to be a socio cultural concept not the other way around.

[realunoriginal]

Well here’s my contention:

Since the language gap is very significant and complex between Asian languages and Western languages, we may not be able to understand their basic motivations through words like ‘selfishness’ and ‘selflessness’.

But yes, self-preservation is fundamental. The question is how do you want to link it to ‘individualism’? It’s necessary for you or I then to discuss the concept through English upon our sociological and cultural backgrounds.

I claim that there is going to be a loss of meaning and understanding if you were to explain Asian socio-cultural concepts in terms of Western ones. That’s fine, but it just means you’ll be playing in a “whole new ball game/field”. Even the metaphors change…

[Joker]

@realunoriginal

Well here’s my contention:

Since the language gap is very significant and complex between Asian languages and Western languages, we may not be able to understand their basic motivations through words like ‘selfishness’ and ‘selflessness’.

But yes, self-preservation is fundamental. The question is how do you want to link it to ‘individualism’? It’s necessary for you or I then to discuss the concept through English upon our sociological and cultural backgrounds.

I claim that there is going to be a loss of meaning and understanding if you were to explain Asian socio-cultural concepts in terms of Western ones. That’s fine, but it just means you’ll be playing in a “whole new ball game/field”. Even the metaphors change…

Well here’s my contention:

Since the language gap is very significant and complex between Asian languages and Western languages, we may not be able to understand their basic motivations through words like ‘selfishness’ and ‘selflessness’.

Their languages are quite complex to be sure…

But yes, self-preservation is fundamental. The question is how do you want to link it to ‘individualism’? It’s necessary for you or I then to discuss the concept through English upon our sociological and cultural backgrounds.

I just can’t see how self preservation could exist without some biological framework of individualism involved.

I claim that there is going to be a loss of meaning and understanding if you were to explain Asian socio-cultural concepts in terms of Western ones. That’s fine, but it just means you’ll be playing in a “whole new ball game/field”. Even the metaphors change…

Sure.

[realunoriginal]

@Joker

I just can’t see how self preservation could exist without some biological framework of individualism involved.

No you’re right.

However what I mean is that in an Asian country for example, that idea and concept of ‘individual’ is going to be vastly different from an American one.

It’s pretty accurate from my experiences to generalize that native Eastern Asian people lack a large sense of “self” that America has. Instead of identifying as a ‘single person’, they are more inclined to identify as ‘part of a family’ or a ‘family-together’, which goes further to relate to national identity.

[The_Paineful_Truth]

@Joker

What are other people’s perception on individualism?

Throughout the history of civilization we can clearly see repression of individuals where revolt, mayhem and rebellion becomes common practice of people throughout the ages.

Individual rights and freedom are recent concepts in the string of “civilized societies”–before which there was ONLY individualism within family and clan. The problem isn’t government, it’s big government. The more government the less freedom, thus limited government is the only way to preserve the maximum of individual freedom while preserving a degree of order.

@realunoriginal

However what I mean is that in an Asian country for example, that idea and concept of ‘individual’ is going to be vastly different from an American one.

It’s pretty accurate from my experiences to generalize that native Eastern Asian people lack a large sense of “self” that America has. Instead of identifying as a ‘single person’, they are more inclined to identify as ‘part of a family’ or a ‘family-together’, which goes further to relate to national identity.

It’s there and it’s smoldering. Remember Tien Ah Men. All they need is their version of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, and the key that unlocks the door will be capitalism/private property–the guarantor/gage of freedom.

[realunoriginal]

That’s true.

However, I don’t believe Asian countries will follow exactly in line with Western “progress”, since their social cohesion is much more ingrained than ours, mainly due to how Christianity has developed ‘progressively’ to emphasis personal relationships with God and thus, individual identity in and of itself.

[The_Paineful_Truth]

Good point, but it was a dead end because Christian dogma has you put others ahead of your new found self.

True maximum possible freedom came in the West when we removed that personal God and replaced it (to a degree) with legal equality for all and a will free from a God who was not revealed through supernatural revelations (at least the latter was held by a lot of the founders). Faced with modern science, The East is approaching the same point by standing up to tanks and coming to capitalism/private property through the back door, so to speak. Meanwhile, the West is sinking back down into the double standard that’s always fostered by socialism.

[Joker]

Even within family or kin groups under socio cultural constructs where different types of individuals exist in comparison to other cultures in contrast different behavior types of people exist giving them a unique sense of individual identity nonetheless.

You may have a narrow definition of culture or order which describes people under one umbrella but at the same time you can never entirely suppress different behavior types in people which shapes and forms individual identity.

[Joker]

@The Paineful Truth

@Joker

What are other people’s perception on individualism?

Throughout the history of civilization we can clearly see repression of individuals where revolt, mayhem and rebellion becomes common practice of people throughout the ages.

Individual rights and freedom are recent concepts in the string of “civilized societies”–before which there was ONLY individualism within family and clan. The problem isn’t government, it’s big government. The more government the less freedom, thus limited government is the only way to preserve the maximum of individual freedom while preserving a degree of order.

@realunoriginal

However what I mean is that in an Asian country for example, that idea and concept of ‘individual’ is going to be vastly different from an American one.

It’s pretty accurate from my experiences to generalize that native Eastern Asian people lack a large sense of “self” that America has. Instead of identifying as a ‘single person’, they are more inclined to identify as ‘part of a family’ or a ‘family-together’, which goes further to relate to national identity.

It’s there and it’s smoldering. Remember Tien Ah Men. All they need is their version of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, and the key that unlocks the door will be capitalism/private property–the guarantor/gage of freedom.

Individual rights

Rights, entitlements and privileges is a new fetish of our species historicaly considering that they are extensions of morality which I personally believe was only introduced to our species at the birth of religion.

During our evolution as primates religion has only been introduced to our way of life quite recently compared to the rest of our history specifically pre-history.

Without naive idealistic notions of morality rights, entitlements and privileges are non- existent where instead you only have a existence where people acquire things by force or by outright taking things.

freedom are recent concepts

Freedom is not a recent concept. Freedom is a state of mind that has always existed either instinctually or by what we call reason.

Freedom has always been acquired by might and force. Nothing new there.

The problem isn’t government, it’s big government.

How are smaller governments less of a problem in contrast to bigger ones?

I have always been under the impression that all government monopolies are a problem atleast for people like me who despise them anyway.

The more government the less freedom,

That much we can agree on.

thus limited government is the only way to preserve the maximum of individual freedom while preserving a degree of order.

In a way no government is really limited. The idea of a limited government seems so silly and naive to me…

All governments are monopolies from my point of view.

Monopolies always find a way around limitations in order to impose themselves on others. It’s inevitable really.

[Provalone]

@Joker

Self preservation naturally leads to individualism.

Not really. We are extremely social creatures, built off of the tribe in practically all facets. An ostracized caveman was a dead caveman.

[The_Paineful_Truth]

@Joker

Rights, entitlements and privileges is a new fetish of our species historicaly considering that they are extensions of morality which I personally believe was only introduced to our species at the birth of religion.

As to rights, I agree, they are extensions of morality. But entitlements and privileges are only the result of socialism and the double standard.

During our evolution as primates religion has only been introduced to our way of life quite recently compared to the rest of our history specifically pre-history.

Without naive idealistic notions of morality, rights are non- existent where instead you only have a existence where people acquire things by force or by outright taking things.

–edited

Actual morality (murder, rape, theft etc.) is rarely given anything but lip service by the revealed religions which tack on all kinds of other stuff they want to manipulate their believers to do like going to church on Sunday so they can be pressured into putting something in the collection plate.

Freedom is not a recent concept. Freedom is a state of mind that has always existed either instinctually or by what we call reason.

Freedom has always been acquired by might and force. Nothing new there.

No man is freer than one alone on a desert island, even though he doesn’t realize he has it. It didn’t require force there, nor did it before “civilization”. There were other things to worry about then. Back then, to acquire freedom, all you had to do was move.

How are smaller governments less of a problem in contrast to bigger ones?

The more government, the bigger it’s control and power, then the greater the ability and temptation to abuse that power.

In a way no government is really limited. The idea of a limited government seems so silly and naive to me…

All governments are monopolies from my point of view.

Well yes, but limited government limits what is monopolized and who controls it. Ideally, government’s mandate or monopoly if you will, should be the minimal necessary functions to protect freedom and maintain good order, i.e. defense, police and a justice/legal system (preferably without lawyers ) Control of government will only be maintained by an informed, motivated electorate. Otherwise some dictator or elite class will become the limited government which won’t remain limited for long (e.g. the U.S.).

Which is my way of saying:

Monopolies always find a way around limitations in order to impose themselves on others. It’s inevitable really.

The only thing to stop them, again, is an informed, motivated (and uncorrupted) electorate.

[Joker]

@Provalone

@Joker

Self preservation naturally leads to individualism.

Not really. We are extremely social creatures, built off of the tribe in practically all facets. An ostracized caveman was a dead caveman.

Or a ostracized caveman found others ostracized, and by working together as individuals enslaved or killed those that ostracized them in the first place assuming that they were the victors of the feud…