The Fallacy of the Individual

[Iridium]

If you say so. I feel you are exaggerating, but we can only wait and see. The patriot act, yeah; Gitmo, yeah; but these are baby-steps toward totalitarianism, and I don't believe that it will be the end-point any time soon. However, I do not see how this relates to your anti-individualist argument. Elaborate, please.

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

It doesn't relate, it was reply to RookParliament regarding his comments on communism and capitalism.

 

[RookParliament]

(not entirely surprising, since most of the neocons were ex-Stalinists and ex-Maoists who converted to the "conservative" cause over the perceived hostility of the Left to Israel and Zionism).

I asked for examples of neo-cons who are ex-Stalinists and ex-Maoists.

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

David Horowitz, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, for example...

 

[RookParliament]

Totalitarianism does not equal Stalinism. With my comments on fascism I meant a gradual step by step shift, with govermental support to a widespread surveillance with eventuall control of our actions. Also I wouldn't call Bush a neo-con. He tried to enact steel tariifs.

 

[RookParliament]

David Horowitz, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, for example...

You got me there, though I don't know If I would call them, especially David Horowitz, Ex-Stalinist or ex-Maoists, but ex-Communist perhaps?

 

[RookParliament]

Why would a world as the neocons see it eventually end at Stalinism?

 

[Nightendday]

The supremacy of the individual informs modern society at all levels, and remains the chief obstacle to healthier modes of social organization and long-term thinking.

The primary flaw in your argument is in understanding 'society' as a living, breathing entity with consciousness, the flourishing and domination of which is a human goal that exceeds all others. Such, I assure you, is not the case.

The basis of all society that has hitherto existed, the social contract, is the agreement between individuals that a governing body be accepted as supreme and that all individuals forsake certain liberties to acquire corresponding securities. Thus the illegality of murder, rape, loot, plunder, all on the assurance from the state that those perpetrating these acts shall be held accountable.

Society is therefore an organization of individuals in a manner that increases individual benefits relative to isolation, or such is the argument for society. To expect a system that has been devised by individuals to serve themselves to be devoid of individualism is utterly foolish.

Further, your argument is self-contradictory. If a society is suppressing 'selfish individual impulses', it is either a small group of individuals doing so or a collective decision of the entire society, and in either case, individual will is being adhered to. There is no policy that does not reflect the will of individuals.

Progress is an illusion. What is good has always been good, what is bad has always been bad. Societies follow both the good and the bad in cycles.

You rely entirely on the assumption that morality stands defined through time and space. If you have a religious standpoint on the issue, I will engage in no further discussion on this particular issue with you. If you believe in your assumption on non-spiritual grounds, I'd like you to back your assertion up.

Healthy societies suppress the impulse of the stupid and the weak... their weakness by protecting their "right" to do so.

For the moment I'll ignore your self-proclaimed intellectual supremacy, hoping that you realise that depending on the party categorizing, you could fall into the 'stupid and the weak' category and that had the same party been the board moderator in your 'healthy' society, your post may have been deleted before we saw it.

the current unhealthy society is now possessed of the means and the stupidity to bring about a destruction so complete that no recovery is possible.

It is equally - if not more - likely that the case is the exact opposite. This 'unhealthy' society provides a lot of vents that your 'healthy' society lacks. While I make no assertion on the issue as yet, I would - again - like you to back yours up.

directed at undermining the conceptual framework that drives unhealthy thinking, and, for once, technology is a help rather than a hindrance, because it allows for the dessimination of truth outside the traditional channels (which are dominated by people with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system).

That is as far from a policy framework as Russia under Stalin was from Communism. Further, tradition classically favours a hierarchal soceity where most individuals are suppressed and political and economic power rest with a few, while moving away from it has historically been moving towards equality and wider representation of individual demands. We have not evolved from democracy to monarchies and feudal systems; the wheels turned the other way round. Tradition is, therefore, more bent towards the 'healthy' society you propose, and your suggestion is more than bound to backfire.

Gitmo and Iraq are not representations of capitalism. Your bringing them up is merely further evidence of the irrelevance of your examples and incoherent nature of your posts. Also, Communism and Capitalism are the same only in the fact that they boast of economic progress. Your allusion to but failure to present the 'common ideology' and the 'common goal' towards which Communism gravitated more strongly is one of the many glaring holes in what you would lovingly call an 'argument'.

To assume that American aggression is not merely a self-serving endeavour but an ideological shift towards radicalization is ludicrous (as, I believe, has already been pointed out). To conclude on the basis of this assumption that this radicalization will take no form other than Stalinism is plain hilarious (as, also, has been pointed out).

 

[kmik]

The fundamental building block of Englightenment and post-Englightenment philosophy (and, as a consequence, of modern Western society) is the concept of the atomized individual, self-defining, self-governing, and, in many ways, self-creating. The supremacy of the individual informs modern society at all levels, and remains the chief obstacle to healthier modes of social organization and long-term thinking.

The real tragedy in this is that the individual as constructed by modern society is a myth. Far from being self-defining, self-governing and self-creating, the individual is merely the interesection of genes and circumstance, given the illusion of "free-will" only through self-deception. Individual rights, liberties and other privileges our societies grant are thus based on a false reading of reality, and represent a devolutionary rather than evolutionary development of human society (and one destined for destruction), only by suppressing the selfish impulses of deluded "individuals" can society hope to survive.

1. The idea of 'you are 100% your bloodline' is not true. It doesn't apply in the case of humans like it does with animals. We're a strange, intellectual beast, shaped by enviornment just as much as we are shaped by our genes. Character and moralism are not present in our DNA. Genetically we are very similar to humans who lived very long ago but behaved completely differently. Humans didn't have the time to adapt to modern society as species, it happened too fast and the change was too drastic. It's a matter of education.
2. I agree with you that free will is an illusion, but you are a fatalist. People have impulses and they want different things, they can control over their actions. However it is the things they want that are determined by nature, so the idea that individual rights have no meaning just because of that is false. I can't take your pie away just because your desire to eat it was determined by your genes, right?
3. "Selfish" impulses? I was sure that according to the so called Nihilist philosophy humans are just animals, and everything, but animals are very selfish. Selfishness is natural, it is obvious that every organism wants to survive, we were "designed" by evolution exactly for that.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Animals that hunt in pacts are not selfish, they share with the group.

 

[Iridium]

Actually, according to most ecology studies, both altruism and reproduction are more prevalent instincts than survival within practically every species.

 

[speed]

This book is quite a revelation: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393059944/qid=1124140803/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5302025-2519141?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It details how our present day ultra-individualistic culture is collapsing upon itself, as our brains and psychological makeup cannot handle the isolation and stress our culture puts on it. In addition, Whybrow claims Americans do have in their brains, a much higher capacity for taking risks than any other group of people, as our ancestors were obviously risk takers. They have somehow proven this scientifically. I am not sure If i agree with the scientific findings of this, but I do find it interesting mainstrem science is researching such things as Prozak etc discuss all the time.

The author is a neuroscientist and the director of a major neuropsychiatry institute. In addition he is mainstream, and has appeared on Charlie Rose. Thus he is not a right or left wing nut. And there is quite a bit of economic theory, which in the past was truly the innovater in the field of individualism etc.

THis book and my observations of American people were the basis of my previous thread Land of Plenty.

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

Why would a world as the neocons see it eventually end at Stalinism?

Again, you seem to have trouble with some pretty basic distinctions of the language.

What part of "something not inherently unlike Stalinism" sounds like "neoconservatism will lead to Stalinism" to you? They are parallel courses, but they do not necessarily intersect.

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

Actually, according to most ecology studies, both altruism and reproduction are more prevalent instincts than survival within practically every species.

"Survival" is referenced at the species rather than individual level (which should be obvious from context).

Both altruism and reproduction are instincts that enhance the prospect of the survival and perpetuation of the species, which is the name of the game.

 

[Iridium]

I was under the impression kmik meant survival of the individual in point 3 of his last post. I misunderstood.

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

The primary flaw in your argument is in understanding 'society' as a living, breathing entity with consciousness, the flourishing and domination of which is a human goal that exceeds all others. Such, I assure you, is not the case.

Society is not necessarily and organic construct, but healthy societies do operate on an organic paradigm. The current society does not.

The basis of all society that has hitherto existed, the social contract,

This is historical ignorance of the basest sort. The "social contract" was the intellectual creation of Enlightenment philosophy (specifically of Jean Jaques Rosseau), and was part and parcel of the Enlightenment construction of individualism. It was a concept that would have been alien to ANY society prior to the 18th century (and remains essentially alien to many non-Western societies even today).

Society is therefore an organization of individuals in a manner that increases individual benefits relative to isolation, or such is the argument for society. To expect a system that has been devised by individuals to serve themselves to be devoid of individualism is utterly foolish.

As noted above, this is purely the conceit of Enlightenment liberalism, and has neither a historical presence in pre-Enlightenment thought and society nor any basis in the actual realities of human biological predisposition or social interaction.

If a society is suppressing 'selfish individual impulses', it is either a small group of individuals doing so or a collective decision of the entire society,

No, in either case, it is a collective rather than individual decision making process.

There is no policy that does not reflect the will of individuals.

"Will" is not "free will," nor does it presuppose the sort of individualism currently practiced in Western society (a distinction you seem to be struggling with).

You rely entirely on the assumption that morality stands defined through time and space.

Morality stands defined through time and space as pure error, a fallacious interpolation of symbols and reality. Function (that is, that which works and prevents the self-destruction of society versus that which, in the long run, does neither) is the real issue, and this is unchanging.

It is equally - if not more - likely that the case is the exact opposite. This 'unhealthy' society provides a lot of vents that your 'healthy' society lacks. While I make no assertion on the issue as yet, I would - again - like you to back yours up.

A society which presupposes an individual "right" (and protects that right both at law and by force of arms, if necessary) to have desires met regardless of their long term consequences (as is the case in our current society) is incapable of averting the consequences of those actions without fundamentally altering its character. Consumerism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism and the consequences thereof are unavoidable as long as our society maintains its current structural matrix, because these are all fundamental elements of that matrix. To prevent the attendant disasters, our society would have to cease to be what it is.

That is as far from a policy framework as Russia under Stalin was from Communism.

Russia under Stalin was most certainly characteristic of second stage communism, but that's neither here nor there.

Further, tradition classically favours a hierarchal soceity where most individuals are suppressed and political and economic power rest with a few,

Yes and no. Traditional hierarchies typically had little to do with economics, and were based on leadership and spiritual functions (which is why the spiritual and temporal leadership castes in traditional societies like Republican Rome, Han China, feudal Japan and Vedic India rarely represented the most economically successful castes).

while moving away from it has historically been moving towards equality and wider representation of individual demands.

This is an artifact of looking at history only through the lens of modern Western history. Over the sweep of history, this is not case.

We have not evolved from democracy to monarchies and feudal systems; the wheels turned the other way round.

Not in the modern era, no. But this looks at history not in its full scope, but in a single place and period.

Historically, the process been cyclic, rather than linear, with societies developing tribal structures (which tend to balance collective authority and individual autonomy), and moving either to monarchy, feudalism or some other form of authoritarianism (which tend to tip the balance towards collective authority), to dissipation in some form of democracy or relative anarchy (which obviously in either case excessively privileges individual autonomy). This latter stage inevitably leads to chaos and collapse at some point, with a rebirth occurring either in the form of resurgent tribalism or resurgent authoritarianism.

Gitmo and Iraq are not representations of capitalism.

No, they are representations of the form of liberal democracy favored by the neoconservative movement.

Also, Communism and Capitalism are the same only in the fact that they boast of economic progress.

Not at all, they seek essentially the same goals by different methods. And please, keep in mind that "capitalism" is purely an economic system, while communism is an sociopolitical AND economic system. The Western analog to communism isn't capitalism, but liberalism (in its classic sense, not the derogatory label of American domestic politics). It

To assume that American aggression is not merely a self-serving endeavour

Oh, it is entirely self-serving, but this in itself represents a radicalization of liberal democracy and a move away from the traditional justifications for democratic action (though these are at least being superficially maintained by the current regime). The underlying philosophy of liberal democracy has always fundamentally been about individual aggrandisement regardless of consequences, the neoconservative movement merely makes the implicit nature of liberalism explicit (which, of course, is a form of radicalism).

To conclude on the basis of this assumption that this radicalization will take no form other than Stalinism is plain hilarious (as, also, has been pointed out).

And again, we see either blatant stupidity or base mendacity. To say that the course which neoconservatism drives at is "not inherently unlike Stalinism" is not to say that it is Stalinism, and to conflate the two views is, at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

Irridium, I thought your reply was referencing my discussions of "survival" elsewhere.

Sorry.

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

1. The idea of 'you are 100% your bloodline' is not true. It doesn't apply in the case of humans like it does with animals. We're a strange, intellectual beast, shaped by enviornment just as much as we are shaped by our genes. Character and moralism are not present in our DNA. Genetically we are very similar to humans who lived very long ago but behaved completely differently. Humans didn't have the time to adapt to modern society as species, it happened too fast and the change was too drastic. It's a matter of education.

A couple of quick responses to this...

1. No one has argued that human behavior is purely genetically determined, rather, I have argued that it is a product of the intersection of genes and experience (that is, environment and circumstance).

2. Character is very much present in DNA, as it is a part of our personality matrix which itself is in many ways biologically determined.

2. I agree with you that free will is an illusion, but you are a fatalist. People have impulses and they want different things, they can control over their actions. However it is the things they want that are determined by nature, so the idea that individual rights have no meaning just because of that is false. I can't take your pie away just because your desire to eat it was determined by your genes, right?

If your overconsumption of pie negatively impacts society as a whole, then yes, we can and should take away your fucking pie, you fat pig.

3. "Selfish" impulses? I was sure that according to the so called Nihilist philosophy humans are just animals, and everything, but animals are very selfish. Selfishness is natural, it is obvious that every organism wants to survive, we were "designed" by evolution exactly for that.

There's a difference between "survival" selfishness and the selfishness of the dickhead who drives a Hummer to his office job.

 

[RookParliament]

Well explain to me how neoconservatism and Stalinism follow a parallel course then.

 

[RookParliament]

If your overconsumption of pie negatively impacts society as a whole, then yes, we can and should take away your fucking pie, you fat pig

Let him eat his pie while he pumps my gas. Whats the problem? We'll always need a sub-class to do the menial jobs. Let them eat pie.