Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

The Individual Creates the Collective

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

However, even though I must concede there is an individuality in as much as the personality varies from the group, there is also agreement that binds, collectively. One's value is both independent and determinant, independent as a single value but determinant as defined by a set; in other words, a value that is not contrasted by other values is no value, at all. He, or she, is neither defined by himself, or herself, nor the group but finds meaning, and value, as defined by both; the personality is an amalgamation of one's individuality and collectivity. In the tension between individuality and collectiveness, the personality is born, born by a constant dynamic between the two phenomena.

As one seeks to free himself, or herself, from the ever present collective, in the act of isolation, he, or she, defines the enemy. For instance, in Judaism, God is both the creator and the destroyer, the one who gives life and the one who takes it away, the author of both good and evil. However, with Christianity, in Christ, God alone is good and hence the need for a devil. It is the isolation of one that created the other. In the light of midday, shadows are most defined. As one increases in polarization, he, or she, attracts and is attracted to those polarizing elements in society. It is this that distinguishes the personality, and it is this that lessens his, or her, dimensionality.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 1:06:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

However, even though I must concede there is an individuality in as much as the personality varies from the group, there is also agreement that binds, collectively. One's value is both independent and determinant, independent as a single value but determinant as defined by a set; in other words, a value that is not contrasted by other values is no value, at all. He, or she, is neither defined by himself, or herself, nor the group but finds meaning, and value, as defined by both; the personality is an amalgamation of one's individuality and collectivity. In the tension between individuality and collectiveness, the personality is born, born by a constant dynamic between the two phenomena.

As one seeks to free himself, or herself, from the ever present collective, in the act of isolation, he, or she, defines the enemy. For instance, in Judaism, God is both the creator and the destroyer, the one who gives life and the one who takes it away, the author of both good and evil. However, with Christianity, in Christ, God alone is good and hence the need for a devil. It is the isolation of one that created the other. In the light of midday, shadows are most defined. As one increases in polarization, he, or she, attracts and is attracted to those polarizing elements in society. It is this that distinguishes the personality, and it is this that lessens his, or her, dimensionality.

Well, one can easily succumb to an attitude that finds the society of one's fellow human beings oppressive & opposed to one's individuality, self-expression, and personal happiness; an attitude captured by that line of Sartre's, that "hell is other people"; and one can make like an autistic "libertarian" and flee from the social nature of life, seeking refuge in the capitalist ideology of the "rugged individualist". Or, one can embrace the social-relational nature of existence like a communist and make the most of it; participate it to more fully & richly actualize one's individuality, creative self-fulfillment, and joy - interactive self-creation with a community being the only real way to optimize oneself, i.e. one's humanity and individual potential. This is the option that I personally prefer.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 8:24:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 1:06:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

However, even though I must concede there is an individuality in as much as the personality varies from the group, there is also agreement that binds, collectively. One's value is both independent and determinant, independent as a single value but determinant as defined by a set; in other words, a value that is not contrasted by other values is no value, at all. He, or she, is neither defined by himself, or herself, nor the group but finds meaning, and value, as defined by both; the personality is an amalgamation of one's individuality and collectivity. In the tension between individuality and collectiveness, the personality is born, born by a constant dynamic between the two phenomena.

As one seeks to free himself, or herself, from the ever present collective, in the act of isolation, he, or she, defines the enemy. For instance, in Judaism, God is both the creator and the destroyer, the one who gives life and the one who takes it away, the author of both good and evil. However, with Christianity, in Christ, God alone is good and hence the need for a devil. It is the isolation of one that created the other. In the light of midday, shadows are most defined. As one increases in polarization, he, or she, attracts and is attracted to those polarizing elements in society. It is this that distinguishes the personality, and it is this that lessens his, or her, dimensionality.

Well, one can easily succumb to an attitude that finds the society of one's fellow human beings oppressive & opposed to one's individuality, self-expression, and personal happiness; an attitude captured by that line of Sartre's, that "hell is other people";

If one finds hell in his, or her, relationship with the collective, his, or her, individuality is marked to such an extent. In other words, the individual's ideas, beliefs, personality, and (or) emotions are not compatible with the collective's. Each of us experiences this to some extent; we call it disagreement.

and one can make like an autistic "libertarian" and flee from the social nature of life, seeking refuge in the capitalist ideology of the "rugged individualist". Or, one can embrace the social-relational nature of existence like a communist and make the most of it;

I think there is a danger in advocating one position over another; the individual is both an individual and part of a collective; therefore, I believe he, or she, has needs as an individual and as part of a group. I believe as we eschew the dynamic, favoring one phenomenon over the other, we create an imbalance between one's need for autonomy and one's need for community. The individual does not always agree with the group and, thusly, the phenomenon of individuality; however, the individual is an individual in relation to the group and, thusly, the phenomenon of collectivity. It is a respect for this tension that creates a healthy dynamic.

participate it to more fully & richly actualize one's individuality, creative self-fulfillment, and joy - interactive self-creation with a community being the only real way to optimize oneself, i.e. one's humanity and individual potential. This is the option that I personally prefer.

However, I believe this is not realized to its fullest in creating an unduly amount of tension between the individualist and the collectivist but in having a more balanced approach.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 4:49:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 8:24:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:06:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

However, even though I must concede there is an individuality in as much as the personality varies from the group, there is also agreement that binds, collectively. One's value is both independent and determinant, independent as a single value but determinant as defined by a set; in other words, a value that is not contrasted by other values is no value, at all. He, or she, is neither defined by himself, or herself, nor the group but finds meaning, and value, as defined by both; the personality is an amalgamation of one's individuality and collectivity. In the tension between individuality and collectiveness, the personality is born, born by a constant dynamic between the two phenomena.

As one seeks to free himself, or herself, from the ever present collective, in the act of isolation, he, or she, defines the enemy. For instance, in Judaism, God is both the creator and the destroyer, the one who gives life and the one who takes it away, the author of both good and evil. However, with Christianity, in Christ, God alone is good and hence the need for a devil. It is the isolation of one that created the other. In the light of midday, shadows are most defined. As one increases in polarization, he, or she, attracts and is attracted to those polarizing elements in society. It is this that distinguishes the personality, and it is this that lessens his, or her, dimensionality.

Well, one can easily succumb to an attitude that finds the society of one's fellow human beings oppressive & opposed to one's individuality, self-expression, and personal happiness; an attitude captured by that line of Sartre's, that "hell is other people";

If one finds hell in his, or her, relationship with the collective, his, or her, individuality is marked to such an extent. In other words, the individual's ideas, beliefs, personality, and (or) emotions are not compatible with the collective's. Each of us experiences this to some extent; we call it disagreement.

Which will endemically exist in any form of society.


and one can make like an autistic "libertarian" and flee from the social nature of life, seeking refuge in the capitalist ideology of the "rugged individualist". Or, one can embrace the social-relational nature of existence like a communist and make the most of it;

I think there is a danger in advocating one position over another; the individual is both an individual and part of a collective ...

Which is precisely my view as well.

participate it to more fully & richly actualize one's individuality, creative self-fulfillment, and joy - interactive self-creation with a community being the only real way to optimize oneself, i.e. one's humanity and individual potential. This is the option that I personally prefer.

However, I believe this is not realized to its fullest in creating an unduly amount of tension between the individualist and the collectivist but in having a more balanced approach.

I'm all for balance and avoiding unhealthy & destructive extremes as well.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:56:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 4:49:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 8:24:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:06:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

However, even though I must concede there is an individuality in as much as the personality varies from the group, there is also agreement that binds, collectively. One's value is both independent and determinant, independent as a single value but determinant as defined by a set; in other words, a value that is not contrasted by other values is no value, at all. He, or she, is neither defined by himself, or herself, nor the group but finds meaning, and value, as defined by both; the personality is an amalgamation of one's individuality and collectivity. In the tension between individuality and collectiveness, the personality is born, born by a constant dynamic between the two phenomena.

As one seeks to free himself, or herself, from the ever present collective, in the act of isolation, he, or she, defines the enemy. For instance, in Judaism, God is both the creator and the destroyer, the one who gives life and the one who takes it away, the author of both good and evil. However, with Christianity, in Christ, God alone is good and hence the need for a devil. It is the isolation of one that created the other. In the light of midday, shadows are most defined. As one increases in polarization, he, or she, attracts and is attracted to those polarizing elements in society. It is this that distinguishes the personality, and it is this that lessens his, or her, dimensionality.

Well, one can easily succumb to an attitude that finds the society of one's fellow human beings oppressive & opposed to one's individuality, self-expression, and personal happiness; an attitude captured by that line of Sartre's, that "hell is other people";

If one finds hell in his, or her, relationship with the collective, his, or her, individuality is marked to such an extent. In other words, the individual's ideas, beliefs, personality, and (or) emotions are not compatible with the collective's. Each of us experiences this to some extent; we call it disagreement.

Which will endemically exist in any form of society.

I agree wholeheartedly.



and one can make like an autistic "libertarian" and flee from the social nature of life, seeking refuge in the capitalist ideology of the "rugged individualist". Or, one can embrace the social-relational nature of existence like a communist and make the most of it;

I think there is a danger in advocating one position over another; the individual is both an individual and part of a collective ...

Which is precisely my view as well.

Because of this, I believe if libertarianism is used to temper socialism and not as an attempt to drive a nail in its coffin, it could be seen as a good thing.


participate it to more fully & richly actualize one's individuality, creative self-fulfillment, and joy - interactive self-creation with a community being the only real way to optimize oneself, i.e. one's humanity and individual potential. This is the option that I personally prefer.

However, I believe this is not realized to its fullest in creating an unduly amount of tension between the individualist and the collectivist but in having a more balanced approach.

I'm all for balance and avoiding unhealthy & destructive extremes as well.

Then, I think our views are more alike than not.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 2:29:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
IDK...I think it's one of those chicken-egg conundrums. Yes, the individual creates the collective, but the collective also creates the individual.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 3:02:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 2:29:52 AM, bsh1 wrote:
IDK...I think it's one of those chicken-egg conundrums. Yes, the individual creates the collective, but the collective also creates the individual.

Well duh!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 4:48:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 4:49:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 8:24:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:06:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

Well, one can easily succumb to an attitude that finds the society of one's fellow human beings oppressive & opposed to one's individuality, self-expression, and personal happiness; an attitude captured by that line of Sartre's, that "hell is other people";

If one finds hell in his, or her, relationship with the collective, his, or her, individuality is marked to such an extent. In other words, the individual's ideas, beliefs, personality, and (or) emotions are not compatible with the collective's. Each of us experiences this to some extent; we call it disagreement.

Which will endemically exist in any form of society.

Maybe not? I am in Singapore and its-- i mean everybodys happy here, it's disgusting. Nobdoy stays at home. They all just sit outside not working and eating and smiling and jumping around like retarded children. There is no purpose. What is the meaning of a society where everybody gets along, Its so boring. Nobody parties here. They dont need to . They are happy. I feel like I am in a prison.. how can I have purpose in a world where we have no debate. I hope I never grow up rich (and fat and happy) and get married and have kids. And then NOTHING. What is the use of my life if I can no longer contribute to the "collective". If everybody just gets along why the hell do "I" exist?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 6:33:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 2:29:52 AM, bsh1 wrote:
IDK...I think it's one of those chicken-egg conundrums. Yes, the individual creates the collective, but the collective also creates the individual.

I agree completely.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 7:31:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Maybe not? I am in Singapore and its-- i mean everybodys happy here, it's disgusting. Nobdoy stays at home. They all just sit outside not working and eating and smiling and jumping around like retarded children. There is no purpose. What is the meaning of a society where everybody gets along, Its so boring. Nobody parties here. They dont need to . They are happy. I feel like I am in a prison.. how can I have purpose in a world where we have no debate. I hope I never grow up rich (and fat and happy) and get married and have kids. And then NOTHING. What is the use of my life if I can no longer contribute to the "collective". If everybody just gets along why the hell do "I" exist?

I'm sorry to hear that.

I believe taken to either extreme life can be hell. However, I don't believe we have centrists and extremists; in other words, I believe these positions are relative to the society and are not intentionally chosen. For, that which may be a centrist in Singapore may be an extremist in America. I don't believe the individual knows that which he, or she, is until it is made obvious by the society in which one is immersed.

Yet, that's not to say collectivism or individualism does not define societies; for, indeed, they do. However, these societies can only be known as one or the other as they are compared to each other. In other words, that which may be seen as an individual right in one society may be seen as a restriction in another. These so called happy people you live with may indeed be happy; if a more collectivistic form of government is truly agreeable to the average person, then, it is seen as the individual's expression of self-governance.

Agreement is always seen as a liberating factor; it enlarges one's self; for, one takes on the transcendent nature of the group. Disagreement is always seen as restrictive; for, the individual is restricted by the desires of the group.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 8:15:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 7:31:45 AM, s-anthony wrote:
I am in Singapore and its-- i mean everybodys happy here, it's disgusting. Nobdoy stays at home. They all just sit outside not working and eating and smiling and jumping around like retarded children. There is no purpose. What is the meaning of a society where everybody gets along, Its so boring. Nobody parties here. They dont need to . They are happy. I feel like I am in a prison.. how can I have purpose in a world where we have no debate. I hope I never grow up rich (and fat and happy) and get married and have kids. And then NOTHING. What is the use of my life if I can no longer contribute to the "collective". If everybody just gets along why the hell do "I" exist?

I'm sorry to hear that.

I believe taken to either extreme life can be hell. However, I don't believe we have centrists and extremists; in other words, I believe these positions are relative to the society and are not intentionally chosen. For, that which may be a centrist in Singapore may be an extremist in America. I don't believe the individual knows that which he, or she, is until it is made obvious by the society in which one is immersed.

Yes my response was to this discussion thread: http://www.debate.org...

I thought Charles would remember the discussion from the Economics forum. The OP was positing SIngapore as a success story.

Agreement is always seen as a liberating factor; it enlarges one's self; for, one takes on the transcendent nature of the group. Disagreement is always seen as restrictive; for, the individual is restricted by the desires of the group.

That is the point though. If singapore succeeds in capitalism does it mean it is a society in "agreement"?

What is the use of a society that:
a) constantly progresses
b) everyone is happy
c) zero conflict
d) (none of the above) / where do I fit in?

Is perfection pointless?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 1:27:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes my response was to this discussion thread: http://www.debate.org......

I thought Charles would remember the discussion from the Economics forum. The OP was positing SIngapore as a success story.

I read the OP and your responses to it. I don't know enough about economics to really give an educated response.

However, even though I believe capitalism is a good thing, I'm definitely against a laissez-faire approach to it; I believe a capitalist system is served best as it is moderated by socialism.

Agreement is always seen as a liberating factor; it enlarges one's self; for, one takes on the transcendent nature of the group. Disagreement is always seen as restrictive; for, the individual is restricted by the desires of the group.

That is the point though. If singapore succeeds in capitalism does it mean it is a society in "agreement"?

Whether an absolute monarchy or an anarchy, the government only reflects the will of the majority. Anytime you have a group, whether a mere couple or a society, there instinctively follows a dominate will and a submissive will; the creation and sustainability of the group is contingent on this fact. If both wills are equal, cooperation is not attainable.

What is the use of a society that:
a) constantly progresses
b) everyone is happy
c) zero conflict
d) (none of the above) / where do I fit in?

Is perfection pointless?

Perfection is meaningless without imperfection.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 4:15:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

However, even though I must concede there is an individuality in as much as the personality varies from the group, there is also agreement that binds, collectively. One's value is both independent and determinant, independent as a single value but determinant as defined by a set; in other words, a value that is not contrasted by other values is no value, at all. He, or she, is neither defined by himself, or herself, nor the group but finds meaning, and value, as defined by both; the personality is an amalgamation of one's individuality and collectivity. In the tension between individuality and collectiveness, the personality is born, born by a constant dynamic between the two phenomena.

As one seeks to free himself, or herself, from the ever present collective, in the act of isolation, he, or she, defines the enemy. For instance, in Judaism, God is both the creator and the destroyer, the one who gives life and the one who takes it away, the author of both good and evil. However, with Christianity, in Christ, God alone is good and hence the need for a devil. It is the isolation of one that created the other. In the light of midday, shadows are most defined. As one increases in polarization, he, or she, attracts and is attracted to those polarizing elements in society. It is this that distinguishes the personality, and it is this that lessens his, or her, dimensionality.

I'm generally in agreement with Bsh1's view that the individual shapes the collective, but so too does the collective shape the individual.

However, not all collectives always existed, and to the extent that the individual choses to define a portion of his own identity by being/acknowledging membership in a novel collective, where this act is the first recognition of the particular collective, the individual creates the collective.

When I say "collective" I mean "group." A group (more or less an association of people) could be any number of things: an association of people who have nothing in common other than that they are united in that particular association, a group of people who form an association on the basis of some common trait that they have like minority sexual identity or race, a group of people who who form an association on the basis of some non-inherent attribute such as a fondness for guns, etc.

There are some groups which membership in is inherent to the individual. For example, a gay boy is born into the LGBTQ community, just as a black girl is born into the black community, etc. even if that individual makes no attempt to associate with the group to which they are necessarily a member. A gay teenager in Montgomery, Alabama is just as much a member of the LGBT community even if he knows no other person who is gay -open or not. A black child adopted in the suburbs of Boston is just as much a member of the African American community even if she was adopted by white parents and is the only black person on her street or in her school. In those cases, membership in a collective is inherent to the individual, to the extent that the collective is one whose membership is based on immutable characteristics. These groups, then, are prior to the individual. These groups cannot be left by some action on the individual's part. Here, the individual could only create the recognition of collective to the extent that individuals chose to identify on the basis of the immutable characteristic which defines the collective's membership. The collective itself, is, nevertheless, prior to the individual.

There are other groups which require some action to be a member of, like the American Bar Association, The Lions Club, The Black Panthers, The Mafia, The American Medical Association, the NRA, etc. Those groups cannot be prior to the individual because they require the individual to act to join them. They are obviously not based on immutable characteristics. They can be left by some action on the individual's part. Here, the individual necessarily creates the collective.

Religion is a tough one, because people can be both born into a religion but to remain a part of it they must chose to remain there. People born to religious parents are likely to be raised in a religious background and may be more or less likely to remain a member of that religious group based on their parental experience, or any other experience associated with being "born" into that particular group. That group, is both prior to the individual, and yet still one in which the individual may leave if they chose. Nietzsche would say that individuals create religion; that religion is as much a creation as is literate, which would mean that the collective can not be prior to the individual. Members of the collective who were born into the collective and never left, where the collective is 'religion' would argue that because God is prior to man, the collective of men who chose to worship God existed prior to all men. Those who are members of a particular religion may also chose to 'join' a religion even if they were not born into it. There is some back-and-fourth between the individual and the collective, nonetheless, because 'individuals' who are members of religious groups define the group of which they are a member, and the group also defines them.
Tsar of DDO
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 4:44:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 4:48:07 AM, fazz wrote:
At 10/10/2014 4:49:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 8:24:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:06:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

Well, one can easily succumb to an attitude that finds the society of one's fellow human beings oppressive & opposed to one's individuality, self-expression, and personal happiness; an attitude captured by that line of Sartre's, that "hell is other people";

If one finds hell in his, or her, relationship with the collective, his, or her, individuality is marked to such an extent. In other words, the individual's ideas, beliefs, personality, and (or) emotions are not compatible with the collective's. Each of us experiences this to some extent; we call it disagreement.

Which will endemically exist in any form of society.

Maybe not? I am in Singapore and its-- i mean everybodys happy here, it's disgusting. Nobdoy stays at home. They all just sit outside not working and eating and smiling and jumping around like retarded children. There is no purpose. What is the meaning of a society where everybody gets along, Its so boring. Nobody parties here. They dont need to . They are happy. I feel like I am in a prison.. how can I have purpose in a world where we have no debate. I hope I never grow up rich (and fat and happy) and get married and have kids. And then NOTHING. What is the use of my life if I can no longer contribute to the "collective". If everybody just gets along why the hell do "I" exist?

It seems that you're being facetious, but yes, an aspect of the existential plight of a great many human beings living under late capitalism is the profound vapidization of life; i.e., the rendering of life meaningless in terms of fundamental social, ethical, axiological, and spiritual ideals and standards. Yes, capitalist society's "inner void", what's known as anomie, that is; and the inner void and anomie of individuals is certainly no laughing matter whatsoever, no matter to wax facetious about. The replacement of meaning and humanistic values with an economic and banausic orientation, with materialism, philistinism, and hedonism is an obvious source of profound spiritual dissatisfaction with life, and of various modern sociopsychological pathologies, such as high rates of clinical depression and chemical dependency (which entails enormous problems for the mental health industry and criminal "justice" system). In short, perhaps you might wish to reconsider making light of modern man's (and woman's) apathetic sense of emptiness, anomie, and hedonistic vapidization, unless you're really okay with the existential state of affairs that you poke fun at above, with human beings being reduced to crass and pathetic specimens of Homo economicus. If that's the case, well, more's the pity.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 6:16:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree we belong to many different collectives, whether voluntarily or involuntarily; and, I believe this speaks to the multidimensional aspects of our personalities.

Without addressing each group in particular, I believe each of us, as individuals, adds a unique value to the group to the extent we change, however minuscule, the collective value of the group.

I also believe our significance is defined in relation to other members of the group; in that way, not only do we define the group but the group defines us.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 8:48:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 4:44:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:48:07 AM, fazz wrote:
At 10/10/2014 4:49:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 8:24:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:06:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

Well, one can easily succumb to an attitude that finds the society of one's fellow human beings oppressive & opposed to one's individuality, self-expression, and personal happiness; an attitude captured by that line of Sartre's, that "hell is other people";

If one finds hell in his, or her, relationship with the collective, his, or her, individuality is marked to such an extent. In other words, the individual's ideas, beliefs, personality, and (or) emotions are not compatible with the collective's. Each of us experiences this to some extent; we call it disagreement.

Which will endemically exist in any form of society.

Maybe not? I am in Singapore and its-- i mean everybodys happy here, it's disgusting. Nobdoy stays at home. They all just sit outside not working and eating and smiling and jumping around like retarded children. There is no purpose. What is the meaning of a society where everybody gets along, Its so boring. Nobody parties here. They dont need to . They are happy. I feel like I am in a prison.. how can I have purpose in a world where we have no debate. I hope I never grow up rich (and fat and happy) and get married and have kids. And then NOTHING. What is the use of my life if I can no longer contribute to the "collective". If everybody just gets along why the hell do "I" exist?

It seems that you're being facetious, but yes, an aspect of the existential plight of a great many human beings living under late capitalism is the profound vapidization of life; i.e., the rendering of life meaningless in terms of fundamental social, ethical, axiological, and spiritual ideals and standards. Yes, capitalist society's "inner void", what's known as anomie, that is; and the inner void and anomie of individuals is certainly no laughing matter whatsoever, no matter to wax facetious about. The replacement of meaning and humanistic values with an economic and banausic orientation, with materialism, philistinism, and hedonism is an obvious source of profound spiritual dissatisfaction with life, and of various modern sociopsychological pathologies, such as high rates of clinical depression and chemical dependency (which entails enormous problems for the mental health industry and criminal "justice" system). In short, perhaps you might wish to reconsider making light of modern man's (and woman's) apathetic sense of emptiness, anomie, and hedonistic vapidization, unless you're really okay with the existential state of affairs that you poke fun at above, with human beings being reduced to crass and pathetic specimens of Homo economicus. If that's the case, well, more's the pity.

Ja! That's my fave word in the dictionary of dictionaries !
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 9:01:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 4:15:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

However, even though I must concede there is an individuality in as much as the personality varies from the group, there is also agreement that binds, collectively. He, or she, is neither defined by himself, or herself, nor the group but finds meaning, and value, as defined by both; the personality is an amalgamation of one's individuality and collectivity. In the tension between individuality and collectiveness, the personality is born.

When I say "collective" I mean "group." A group (more or less an association of people) could be any number of things: an association of people who have nothing in common other than that they are united in that particular association, a group of people who form an association on the basis of some common trait that they have like minority sexual identity or race, a group of people who who form an association on the basis of some non-inherent attribute such as a fondness for guns, etc.

Yes. I think YYW is drawing the essential distinction (bold &bolded) between Group Formation and the Collective. S-Anthony is inferring that the collective is all that exists. That the moment we are borne unto earth as individual we give up our right to birth, itself, i.e., we are not born but 'gestated' into the collective by the will of the collective. In this sense each individual carries with himself the voice and tradition and apriori knowledge of the whole. The formation as groups as YYW is distincting is specific to the formation of tribes, and such organized behavior towards politics. Eg: The lgbt community is a subgroup within the larger collective, and the black community forms its own political barriers to define itself as a group or subgroup.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 9:53:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes. I think YYW is drawing the essential distinction (bold &bolded) between Group Formation and the Collective. S-Anthony is inferring that the collective is all that exists. That the moment we are borne unto earth as individual we give up our right to birth, itself, i.e., we are not born but 'gestated' into the collective by the will of the collective. In this sense each individual carries with himself the voice and tradition and apriori knowledge of the whole. The formation as groups as YYW is distincting is specific to the formation of tribes, and such organized behavior towards politics. Eg: The lgbt community is a subgroup within the larger collective, and the black community forms its own political barriers to define itself as a group or subgroup.

I'm using the term, collective, as a mere aggregate of people with commonalities. I make no distinction between the synonymous terms, collective and group.

Even though I believe the individual is part of a collective, I do not believe the individual ever ceases to be an individual. I believe the existence of the collective necessitates the existence of the individual and vice versa.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 11:56:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 8:48:02 PM, fazz wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:44:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:48:07 AM, fazz wrote:
At 10/10/2014 4:49:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 8:24:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:06:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

Well, one can easily succumb to an attitude that finds the society of one's fellow human beings oppressive & opposed to one's individuality, self-expression, and personal happiness; an attitude captured by that line of Sartre's, that "hell is other people";

If one finds hell in his, or her, relationship with the collective, his, or her, individuality is marked to such an extent. In other words, the individual's ideas, beliefs, personality, and (or) emotions are not compatible with the collective's. Each of us experiences this to some extent; we call it disagreement.

Which will endemically exist in any form of society.

Maybe not? I am in Singapore and its-- i mean everybodys happy here, it's disgusting. Nobdoy stays at home. They all just sit outside not working and eating and smiling and jumping around like retarded children. There is no purpose. What is the meaning of a society where everybody gets along, Its so boring. Nobody parties here. They dont need to . They are happy. I feel like I am in a prison.. how can I have purpose in a world where we have no debate. I hope I never grow up rich (and fat and happy) and get married and have kids. And then NOTHING. What is the use of my life if I can no longer contribute to the "collective". If everybody just gets along why the hell do "I" exist?

It seems that you're being facetious, but yes, an aspect of the existential plight of a great many human beings living under late capitalism is the profound vapidization of life; i.e., the rendering of life meaningless in terms of fundamental social, ethical, axiological, and spiritual ideals and standards. Yes, capitalist society's "inner void", what's known as anomie, that is; and the inner void and anomie of individuals is certainly no laughing matter whatsoever, no matter to wax facetious about. The replacement of meaning and humanistic values with an economic and banausic orientation, with materialism, philistinism, and hedonism is an obvious source of profound spiritual dissatisfaction with life, and of various modern sociopsychological pathologies, such as high rates of clinical depression and chemical dependency (which entails enormous problems for the mental health industry and criminal "justice" system). In short, perhaps you might wish to reconsider making light of modern man's (and woman's) apathetic sense of emptiness, anomie, and hedonistic vapidization, unless you're really okay with the existential state of affairs that you poke fun at above, with human beings being reduced to crass and pathetic specimens of Homo economicus. If that's the case, well, more's the pity.

Ja! That's my fave word in the dictionary of dictionaries !

My favorite word is floccinaucinihilipilification. It's defined as: "the act of making something seem worthless or without value". Are you trying to floccinaucinihilipilificate my above reply with a flippant response? Did I offend you, or is such short shrift all that you think my reply merits?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 5:53:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 11:56:17 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/11/2014 8:48:02 PM, fazz wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:44:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:48:07 AM, fazz wrote:
At 10/10/2014 4:49:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 8:24:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:06:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

Well, one can easily succumb to an attitude that finds the society of one's fellow human beings oppressive & opposed to one's individuality, self-expression, and personal happiness; an attitude captured by that line of Sartre's, that "hell is other people";

If one finds hell in his, or her, relationship with the collective, his, or her, individuality is marked to such an extent. In other words, the individual's ideas, beliefs, personality, and (or) emotions are not compatible with the collective's. Each of us experiences this to some extent; we call it disagreement.

Which will endemically exist in any form of society.

Maybe not? I am in Singapore and its-- i mean everybodys happy here, it's disgusting. Nobdoy stays at home. They all just sit outside not working and eating and smiling and jumping around like retarded children. There is no purpose. What is the meaning of a society where everybody gets along, Its so boring. Nobody parties here. They dont need to . They are happy. I feel like I am in a prison.. how can I have purpose in a world where we have no debate. I hope I never grow up rich (and fat and happy) and get married and have kids. And then NOTHING. What is the use of my life if I can no longer contribute to the "collective". If everybody just gets along why the hell do "I" exist?

It seems that you're being facetious, but yes, an aspect of the existential plight of a great many human beings living under late capitalism is the profound vapidization of life; i.e., the rendering of life meaningless in terms of fundamental social, ethical, axiological, and spiritual ideals and standards. Yes, capitalist society's "inner void", what's known as anomie, that is; and the inner void and anomie of individuals is certainly no laughing matter whatsoever, no matter to wax facetious about. The replacement of meaning and humanistic values with an economic and banausic orientation, with materialism, philistinism, and hedonism is an obvious source of profound spiritual dissatisfaction with life, and of various modern sociopsychological pathologies, such as high rates of clinical depression and chemical dependency (which entails enormous problems for the mental health industry and criminal "justice" system). In short, perhaps you might wish to reconsider making light of modern man's (and woman's) apathetic sense of emptiness, anomie, and hedonistic vapidization, unless you're really okay with the existential state of affairs that you poke fun at above, with human beings being reduced to crass and pathetic specimens of Homo economicus. If that's the case, well, more's the pity.

Ja! That's my fave word in the dictionary of dictionaries !

My favorite word is floccinaucinihilipilification. It's defined as: "the act of making something seem worthless or without value". Are you trying to floccinaucinihilipilificate my above reply with a flippant response? Did I offend you, or is such short shrift all that you think my reply merits?

The word is... Anomie!
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 4:51:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 5:53:00 AM, fazz wrote:
At 10/11/2014 11:56:17 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/11/2014 8:48:02 PM, fazz wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:44:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:48:07 AM, fazz wrote:
At 10/10/2014 4:49:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 8:24:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/10/2014 1:06:25 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:30:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A personality is an attempt at defining a person as an individual.

Well, one can easily succumb to an attitude that finds the society of one's fellow human beings oppressive & opposed to one's individuality, self-expression, and personal happiness; an attitude captured by that line of Sartre's, that "hell is other people";

If one finds hell in his, or her, relationship with the collective, his, or her, individuality is marked to such an extent. In other words, the individual's ideas, beliefs, personality, and (or) emotions are not compatible with the collective's. Each of us experiences this to some extent; we call it disagreement.

Which will endemically exist in any form of society.

Maybe not? I am in Singapore and its-- i mean everybodys happy here, it's disgusting. Nobdoy stays at home. They all just sit outside not working and eating and smiling and jumping around like retarded children. There is no purpose. What is the meaning of a society where everybody gets along, Its so boring. Nobody parties here. They dont need to . They are happy. I feel like I am in a prison.. how can I have purpose in a world where we have no debate. I hope I never grow up rich (and fat and happy) and get married and have kids. And then NOTHING. What is the use of my life if I can no longer contribute to the "collective". If everybody just gets along why the hell do "I" exist?

It seems that you're being facetious, but yes, an aspect of the existential plight of a great many human beings living under late capitalism is the profound vapidization of life; i.e., the rendering of life meaningless in terms of fundamental social, ethical, axiological, and spiritual ideals and standards. Yes, capitalist society's "inner void", what's known as anomie, that is; and the inner void and anomie of individuals is certainly no laughing matter whatsoever, no matter to wax facetious about. The replacement of meaning and humanistic values with an economic and banausic orientation, with materialism, philistinism, and hedonism is an obvious source of profound spiritual dissatisfaction with life, and of various modern sociopsychological pathologies, such as high rates of clinical depression and chemical dependency (which entails enormous problems for the mental health industry and criminal "justice" system). In short, perhaps you might wish to reconsider making light of modern man's (and woman's) apathetic sense of emptiness, anomie, and hedonistic vapidization, unless you're really okay with the existential state of affairs that you poke fun at above, with human beings being reduced to crass and pathetic specimens of Homo economicus. If that's the case, well, more's the pity.

Ja! That's my fave word in the dictionary of dictionaries !

My favorite word is floccinaucinihilipilification. It's defined as: "the act of making something seem worthless or without value". Are you trying to floccinaucinihilipilificate my above reply with a flippant response? Did I offend you, or is such short shrift all that you think my reply merits?

The word is... Anomie!

And?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 2:53:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 5:10:23 AM, fazz wrote:
At 10/12/2014 4:51:26 PM, charleslb wrote:

And?

My word is better than your word.

Oh.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.