Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Extremes Drive Us Apart

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2015 2:58:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is a difficult problem: are people born individualists or collectivists or do they acquire these characteristics.

On one hand, I'm tempted to say they are born one or the other; for, a tendency to divorce oneself from societal bonding, in many cases, seems to happen at a very young age.

(However not always) In some instances, as the child rebels later in life, he, or she, grows further from one's parents and begins to detest the ideals his, or her, parents tried to instill. Individualism is not, necessarily, an innate or fixed personality. An individual may rebel against the establishment only to later integrate certain components or define it using a contemporary terminology.

So, the question persists not of the individual who is acutely conditioned but of the individual who is chronically conditioned and to the degree of his, or her, condition. A disease is a condition, or state, which is brought about by an imbalanced system of the body, a condition which apart from therapy may incur death. Now, to say someone is diseased because he, or she, is an individualist or a collectivist may seem a tad bit extreme. However, in taking one characteristic to the extreme creates dysfunctionality in the individual and in his, or her, society. People do not fight and create divisions over those things in which they are closest to the center but over those things in which they are furthest apart. It is the center of gravity that brings a society together; it is an unduly weight placed on its extremities that causes its instability and ultimate demise.
ironslippers
Posts: 514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 3:27:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 2:58:52 AM, s-anthony wrote:
It is a difficult problem: are people born individualists or collectivists or do they acquire these characteristics.

I consider in the terms of romantic or classical philosophy

On one hand, I'm tempted to say they are born one or the other; for, a tendency to divorce oneself from societal bonding, in many cases, seems to happen at a very young age.

I don't know what the causation of this is

(However not always) In some instances, as the child rebels later in life, he, or she, grows further from one's parents and begins to detest the ideals his, or her, parents tried to instill. Individualism is not, necessarily, an innate or fixed personality. An individual may rebel against the establishment only to later integrate certain components or define it using a contemporary terminology.

So, the question persists not of the individual who is acutely conditioned but of the individual who is chronically conditioned and to the degree of his, or her, condition. A disease is a condition, or state, which is brought about by an imbalanced system of the body, a condition which apart from therapy may incur death. Now, to say someone is diseased because he, or she, is an individualist or a collectivist may seem a tad bit extreme. However, in taking one characteristic to the extreme creates dysfunctionality in the individual and in his, or her, society. People do not fight and create divisions over those things in which they are closest to the center but over those things in which they are furthest apart. It is the center of gravity that brings a society together; it is an unduly weight placed on its extremities that causes its instability and ultimate demise.

Agreed. It's the imbalance that we should over come individualy Not everything is Black and white one must use their own pallett in actually becomeing more than the extreme. I wanted to give this a BUMP because I would like to see more on this topic
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 10:16:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 2:58:52 AM, s-anthony wrote:
It is a difficult problem: are people born individualists or collectivists or do they acquire these characteristics.

On one hand, I'm tempted to say they are born one or the other; for, a tendency to divorce oneself from societal bonding, in many cases, seems to happen at a very young age.

(However not always) In some instances, as the child rebels later in life, he, or she, grows further from one's parents and begins to detest the ideals his, or her, parents tried to instill. Individualism is not, necessarily, an innate or fixed personality. An individual may rebel against the establishment only to later integrate certain components or define it using a contemporary terminology.

So, the question persists not of the individual who is acutely conditioned but of the individual who is chronically conditioned and to the degree of his, or her, condition. A disease is a condition, or state, which is brought about by an imbalanced system of the body, a condition which apart from therapy may incur death. Now, to say someone is diseased because he, or she, is an individualist or a collectivist may seem a tad bit extreme. However, in taking one characteristic to the extreme creates dysfunctionality in the individual and in his, or her, society. People do not fight and create divisions over those things in which they are closest to the center but over those things in which they are furthest apart. It is the center of gravity that brings a society together; it is an unduly weight placed on its extremities that causes its instability and ultimate demise.

Humans are, by nature, driven by a herd mentality. We learn by observation. So, I believe we are individuals that are influenced by the collective. Nothing more, nothing less.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 5:09:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Agreed. It's the imbalance that we should over come individualy Not everything is Black and white one must use their own pallett in actually becomeing more than the extreme. I wanted to give this a BUMP because I would like to see more on this topic

I believe this imbalance may be innately facilitated as in a personal defect or brought about through a force of will. In other words, I believe certain people have a natural inclination, or propensity, to antisocial behaviour and others develop a dislike for the collective as a response to perceived estrangement.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 5:21:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Humans are, by nature, driven by a herd mentality. We learn by observation. So, I believe we are individuals that are influenced by the collective. Nothing more, nothing less.

I believe we have social and antisocial tendencies, and it these dynamics that create of us both a collective and individuals.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 1:30:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is truth in both, whether collective or individual. A group of people who understand human rights and the value of life can be collective and not step into extremism. Those who join that collective would be joining it willingly and not by compulsion. While there may be some things about that collective that are not right, in general, if they hold to human rights and common law, people will willingly stay and support that collective. In a sense, that's the kind of collective that we have in America. In my viewpoint it is a good collective, since one joins willingly. As long as they stay within the bounds of common law they can still keep their autonomy.

The collective that is evil and should be avoided is the collective that points guns at people and says, "you must do such and such or we'll kill or imprison you." This is the extremism of the socialistic collective. It completely rubs a person's autonomy out by force. Because it is by force and not surrendered to willingly, the people of this collective live in misery. The overseers of this collective instinctively know that people do not willingly follow collectives at the point of a gun so they us torture methods to train the people's minds to accept their collective slavery, which is what it is at that point.

Individualism means freedom to me. An individuals mind is free to think what it so desires. It is free to decide whether a thing will to lead to a person's good or bad. It is free to choose to do things that will lead to that person's happiness. Because it is free it understands that it is conscious, and that other people are conscious. This consciousness of other people's lives leads to an understanding that all people desire to live in peace, to hunt, to gather, to sleep in safety, to have no fear of rape, murder, or imprisonment. To make sure that all individuals have a guarantee of liberty, life and happiness, certain laws called common laws are instituted and enforced. These common laws are not for the 95% of the people who understand individuality. These laws are for the people who do not, for it is these laws that will lead to their punishments so as to protect the people who obey those laws.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 2:55:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is truth in both, whether collective or individual. A group of people who understand human rights and the value of life can be collective and not step into extremism. Those who join that collective would be joining it willingly and not by compulsion. While there may be some things about that collective that are not right, in general, if they hold to human rights and common law, people will willingly stay and support that collective. In a sense, that's the kind of collective that we have in America. In my viewpoint it is a good collective, since one joins willingly. As long as they stay within the bounds of common law they can still keep their autonomy.

It's true in every healthy society the individual's will is appreciated and respected to a reasonable degree, especially if his, or her, will does not infringe upon the common good of others.

However, even in America, "personal liberties" are defined and governed by the collective. The "individual" is a lesser force defined by a greater force called "the collective". The significance of the "individual" is not only determined by the individual but, also, the collective. It is this dynamic in each particular instance that determines individual values. The reason I say in each particular instance is because each individual value is unique. It's determined not only in respect to the collective but also in respect to the individual. In other words, the appraisal, or estimation, is interrelational, a dynamic response based on personal and collective evaluations.

In the case of the individualist, the individual puts an unduly significance on "individuality" at the expense of the collective; in the case of the collectivist, the opposite is true. I believe health of any system is acquired through homeostasis.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 3:56:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 2:55:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
There is truth in both, whether collective or individual. A group of people who understand human rights and the value of life can be collective and not step into extremism. Those who join that collective would be joining it willingly and not by compulsion. While there may be some things about that collective that are not right, in general, if they hold to human rights and common law, people will willingly stay and support that collective. In a sense, that's the kind of collective that we have in America. In my viewpoint it is a good collective, since one joins willingly. As long as they stay within the bounds of common law they can still keep their autonomy.


It's true in every healthy society the individual's will is appreciated and respected to a reasonable degree, especially if his, or her, will does not infringe upon the common good of others.

However, even in America, "personal liberties" are defined and governed by the collective. The "individual" is a lesser force defined by a greater force called "the collective". The significance of the "individual" is not only determined by the individual but, also, the collective. It is this dynamic in each particular instance that determines individual values. The reason I say in each particular instance is because each individual value is unique. It's determined not only in respect to the collective but also in respect to the individual. In other words, the appraisal, or estimation, is interrelational, a dynamic response based on personal and collective evaluations.

In the case of the individualist, the individual puts an unduly significance on "individuality" at the expense of the collective; in the case of the collectivist, the opposite is true. I believe health of any system is acquired through homeostasis.

The reason for the collective is that we are social animals. We could be very individualistic if we wanted. We could find a wife who is also individualistic and go live as hermits. But because we yearn for groups we will join a collective. Moreover, there is a line of thinking that states that our values and morals, and individual liberties is what forms a collective of liberty in the first place. Where common law and human rights abound, people willingly magnetize to that region. They will form collectives within those philosophical values. They do this, again, for sake of safety and peace. Young people are then molded to that collective idea. In some ways they do give up their individuality, but this is willingly, for in a collective that celebrates liberty and freedom, the individual is allowed to leave and become an individualized hermit if he/she wants to. But I claim that it is still possible to remain an individual in that collective. A strong person can remain autonomous. They may not have a lot of friends, but they can still remain independent.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 3:35:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The reason for the collective is that we are social animals. We could be very individualistic if we wanted. We could find a wife who is also individualistic and go live as hermits. But because we yearn for groups we will join a collective. Moreover, there is a line of thinking that states that our values and morals, and individual liberties is what forms a collective of liberty in the first place.

Society restricts individuality. It creates borders that define the "individual" just as it defines the various roles by which each person is characterized, such as "man", "woman", "boy", "girl", "husband", "wife", "father", "mother", children, "brother", "sister", and so on, and so on. That's not to say there are not personal and biological factors that go into the determination of each role, but, for the most part, an individual's meaning begins to take shape at the very moment of "conception"; and, I use that term in its biological and psychological senses.

Not all restrictions are agreed to by the individual; for, in many cases, the individual hasn't the slightest idea he, or she, is being limited. Personal identity is forged both by the individual and his, or her, collective. In divorcing oneself from all the prohibitions of society, the individual not only looses himself, or herself, from the bands placed around him, or her, by societal norms and expectations but also loses a large part of oneself in the process, maybe even vital or critical dimensions necessary for the integrity of the personality.