Classic BAAWA response, a single sentence that does not even bothering supporting its thesis. Pathetic, and wrong.
lam,
Did you say that or the borg? Am I speaking to Tom or Lam at the moment?
Is substantiating a comment a very difficult thing to do?
Am I speaking to Tom or Lam at the moment?
I actually like that one. It hit the nail right on the head.
I deny that it is philosophically meaningful speaking of “The Individual” because man is, by his very nature, born into society, and it is in society that he forms his identity influenced by his society’s norms, mores, and language. If that means that I am a borg, then so are we all.
But only he can choose to participate in that society. He still has to decide as an individual, and decide which attributes of society he chooses to adopt, as an individual. He is not compelled to do one thing or another, he makes an individual decision. The individual who participates in the whole is only exploiting it’s fruit. It doesn’t mean he is no longer an individual contributing to the whole.
If man were a part of a ‘collective’ there would be no disagreements, there would be no objecting political parties with opposing beliefs. If man were not an island there would be uniformity, we would be in concert with each other, in unison. If man were an organic part of the collective his decisions would be chosen at birth, he would no longer need to decide, or to act. He would be a robot of a greater organism. There would be no European man, American Man, Asian Man, there would be only the overmind, the collective, a single entity. THat is nto the case, cultures are groups of individuals that vary vastly. They very because they are influenced not by society, but by individuals. What are the influences of society if not simply influences of individuals to other individuals. There is no such thing as society preferring fish to meat, or society preferring books to movies. Society has not a single coherent preference, it is not a whole. Attempting to assign a singular value to society is foolish.
That is not the case. We are each individuals, and we act accordingly.
What you’re saying is self-evident to me, it seems ridiculous to assert that “The Individual” is some absolute that is not influenced in any way by society.
Besides the fact that it did not, I’m sorry but is it really hard for people to realize the basic conclusions of man being a social animal?
And yet his single sentence refuted your whole premise.
You’re making a false dichotomy here. Asserting that because we’re not a hive mind that we must not be a collective in any way shape or form either. I mean it’s obviously not true.
But your implying that society assigns his identity. Society does nothing. Only other men can influence a person, only other individuals can influence his actions. Society does no influencing at all. If this were the case there would not be conflicting interests.
Well said. Thanks for summaryzing my post.
There is a reason why the Axion Human Action is singular, as opposed to a plural form. “Humans Act”.
Society has not values, society has not variables, society is not consistent, nor singular. All of those attributes can only exist in individual men.
The fact that he is “social” is inconsequential, it is not his essence. The torrential differences of experience and genetic predispositions assures that no individual is identical to any other individual. There is no “society,” there is no “collective,” there are only individuals coordinating because they want to better their own situation, which varies from one person to the next.
You’re making philosophical arguments where neither history nor psychology nor really even biology (which is not my strong suit, admittedly) can back you up. You must know this.
If society doesn’t exist in concrete form (which, in my mind it does), then it still obviously exists as an idea that individuals seem to almost innately understand. As an individual, I coordinate my activity based on the activity of others. I don’t exist as just an individual or as a collective. I exist as both simultaneously.
The question that I ask, and I think you’re asking is “where do we draw that line?” I honestly don’t know. I’m still trying to find a good answer for that question.
Esuric raises an other strong point. If man were not concerned with his own ‘individual’ ends he would not act int he framework of society at all. Man acts for himself, not for or because of society. If man were on the flipside concerned with the ends of society, he would not act, he would be part of a greater organism workign in concert, like an Ant colony.
Unfortunately this is not the case, even individuals who have the same ends as others act do further their own ends first. It is just by coincidence of preference that others share a similar end.
There is no line to draw. If you and I were acting for the ends of society you would not be here, and there would be no disagreement between us. You are here to act for your own individual ends. So you essentially refute yourself and Lam.
The man who retreats from society and decides to live in seclusion is still a man. He still economizes, and still seeks to better his own position.
So basically you’re saying that man does not act as a collective sometimes, it just looks like he does?
Because they all happen to agree to the same things or have the same desires at the same time is purely coincidental?
I mean…really?
I do not. Nota bene:
Please read carefully before posting.
All that this is doing is creating a semantical debate, if you really believed that I am asserting that society per se is an actor that is doing the influencing, then I do not know what to say to you.
How can you possibly assert that man being social in his nature is inconsequential? Are you blind to the world around you, of the influences that norms, mores, language, and social expectations have upon behavior?
?
You are dodging the point that there is no meaningful notion of “The Individual” because of the fact that man is so greatly influenced by his society, by the other individuals that surround him.