I think the real issue is that the US has really serious socio-economic problems as the middle class isn't growing, and people aren't happy about the corruption both on the left and right. And things obviously are going to get far worse with the selected monetary & fiscal policy. So it's good for the elite to give room for in the end rather silly wokeness and have it divide people in new ways. When the lower classes are deeply divided and hate each other, it's better for the ruling elite. Worst thing would be that someone came and united the medium to low income Americans! — ssu

What do you mean by the elite giving room for wokeness?

I imagine there could be if you were to present one.
– praxis

Is a critic still a critic if he is unfamiliar with the literature? — NOS4A2

Yes, just not a good one.

I went straight to the punchline and didn't read your OP until now. Turns out you've thoroughly thwarted all criticisms yourself with:

"No individualist suggested 'taking man out of society'"

"Selfishness is present among collectivists, too"

And last but not least...

"Anarchy has never arrived"

These three aspects have been addressed in the topic and your reading comprehension seems good, so the issue must be the same as it frequently is with you, your honesty.

To clarify, he's not explaining my misunderstandings. He's not pointing out my errors and showing how it really is. Also alleges a clandestine agenda of some kind. I suppose because he believes that I'm not interested in truth and just want to play games. I do love games but I also value truth. Why not have both?! :razz:

One can see, even from this thread alone, that individualism is held in fear or contempt. — NOS4A2

An odd statement considering deeply imbedded it is in Western, or at least American, culture.

Yet there have been zero refutations of actual individualist argument. — NOS4A2

I imagine there could be if you were to present one.

The problem arises when such societies force individuals to participate against their will. — Tzeentch

I guess that's why democracy tends to work best for the average Joe.

"For the many to thrive, some must suffer," seems to be the reigning sentiment on the opponents of individualism "You will have to suffer, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". That there is no valid reason why the individual would have to accept such a bad deal seems obvious to me. — Tzeentch

Doesn't make sense. Were those who forced non-state societies into the drudgery and disease of developed agriculture working with them cooperatively or exploitively?

I think there are two basic strategies for social living, which are living cooperatively for mutual benefit or competing for resources. In competition there is always winners and losers, so in that strategy some are guaranteed to suffer. That's not the case in a society that cooperates for mutual benefit. The Libertarian moral framework is designed to rationalize the competitive strategy.

What you most fear, the state taking over what used to be provided by the collective.

I cannot be helpful so I might as well bow out.

If you were intereeted in the topic you wouldn't have so many misunderstandings of it. — FrancisRay

Let's not kid ourselves, failure to explain suggests that you may not understand what you're talking about well enough to explain.

In short, your answer seems to be "Yes, they are simply collateral damage". — Tzeentch

This implies that I'm for the project of the development of the state, regardless of the incalculable suffering that it may cause. As though I wish that any hunter-gatherer societies that exist today were developed into states, or worse, annexed by a state. I'm evil, but I'm not that evil. It seems your arguments have degenerated somewhat and now include ad hominem attacks.

The system that facilites and promotes the birthing of individuals, then promptly attempts to claim them for its own purposes, like a failed parent, has no other answer than "If you don't like it here, you can leave".

Of course, this isn't even a realistic option for the vast majority of individuals. To emancipate oneself from the mental clutches of the state is a lengthy process, by the end of which one finds themselves rooted in the system. To emancipate oneself from the physical clutches of the state, a near-impossibility.

Luckily, the individual has other options. Namely, to dispose any of the state's mental and intellectual impositions in the trash bin where they belong, leaving the state with only its most primitive tool, the cement of "society"; coercion, which the average individual is insignificant enough to evade. — Tzeentch

It's curious that the individualism that you appear to value so much is a consequence of the development of the state, and now you and NOS pooh-poohing the thing that gave rise to your moral framework. Shouldn't you guys be grateful?

So Buddhists are not only believers, they’re quitters as well. You’re gonna need more grit to end the dukkha, dude. :victory:

I've read research that the original intentions were pretty much as you describe, and only relatively recently has civilazation been worth the price of forced admission for the average Joe.
— praxis

And what about those for whom it has not been worth it? Are you happy to accept them as collateral damage? Do you believe they should too? — Tzeentch

If these are rhetorical questions l’m not getting the point. It looks like life in hunter-gatherer society or simple farming was better until only recently, but now it is generally better. Anyone can go off-grid and live off the land if they wish to now.

We probably have different conceptions of the state. I see any state system as an imposition, formed by conquest and confiscation, designed to enrich the conquerors by exploiting the vanquished. To me it is fundamentally criminal and anti-social institution no matter how far it has strayed from its original intentions. — NOS4A2

I've read research that the original intentions were pretty much as you describe, and only relatively recently has civilazation been worth the price of forced admission for the average Joe. That's history though, today we could emigrate to any country that would have us and perhaps find ourselves in a better situation than where we came from. You're an expatriate yourself, aren't you?

What I always find funny about individualists and their freedoms is how they basically whine about rights that haven't really existed for the majority of western people since the 1900s. By every conceivable standard, there's more choice and more freedom today than in the past with some fluctuations here and there. There's also more choice and freedom in western social democracies than the Anglo Saxon affair often touted as an example of individualism.

Personal rights are protected by strong and effective governments. In other words, small governments and maximized freedom are mutually exclusive. — Benkei

Something as basic as food, I’m sure that prior to the FDA food producers didn’t want anyone meddling in their business. They did pretty much whatever the market would bear, until the buyers could no longer bear it. Some of the worst additives were things like radium and highly addictive drugs like cocaine.

A more nuanced version of the 1st NT, or ‘Western conditioning’, doesn’t alter the fact of the matter that if your experience is the cessation of dukkha you wouldn’t seek it. You can only believe in it, same as many Buddhist tenets like rebirth and karma. Religions don’t work without metaphysics because authorities need special access that is not available to mundane folk.

If your objection holds then all Buddhist are fools, and I suspect that even you would find this is a touch unlikely. — FrancisRay

I’m not objecting to what Buddhists wish to believe. I’m merely pointing out, as does the OP, that it is belief.

Our world views are, at least initially, largely based on the beliefs and opinions of others. That is an obstacle to freedom and one's ability to make conscious, voluntary decisions. — Tzeentch

I don’t think that any of us knows what it would be like to somehow erase all our conditioning and achieve a kind of moral blank-slate, if a ‘moral blank-slate’ makes any sense. Would such a way of being value liberty as much as you appear to?

The world of pleasure and pain, satisfaction and dissatisfaction is the world of suffering. Are you saying otherwise? — FrancisRay

Yes.

Life is comprised of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize your immorality there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize emptiness or your 'true nature' there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If we can see satisfaction as dissatisfaction, or satisfaction/dissatisfaction as dissatisfaction, then why can't we see it the other way around, or the way it actually appears to be?

Is individualism a value, attitude, belief, social policy, practice or what? — bert1

A moral framework that puts personal liberty on a pedestal, rationalizing selfish and in many cases self-defeating choices.

Yes, you would like to make the claim that individuals owe their existence to the societies they are born into, forgetting the fact that man doesn't choose what society he is born into, nor does he choose to exist at all. I see no reason why this situation would forfeit his essential freedom, which can only be a result of voluntary choice, or such is my view. — Tzeentch

The choices we make are largely shaped by the culture and environment we develop in, or at least the way we rationalize our choices. It’s as though you’re claiming that we have the freedom to choose the way we choose.

However, one would hope that since they had to undo the damage done to them, they would apply methods that do not do the same to others. — Tzeentch

They'd use critical thinking, of course, to free themselves from libertarian beliefs and those that have manipulated them with it.

A free person more readily recognizes and accepts those responsibilities that are theirs, because they chose them voluntarily. They do not necessarily assume more responsibilities. — Tzeentch

Does that make sense? There's literally mountains of evidence indicating that people don't freely accept responsibility. Take something as simple as driving. If someone applied their critical thinking they may come to realize that following traffic laws was in their best interest and in the best interest of other drivers, so rather than those law being imposed on them they would be freely accepted. An invisible chain being invisibly discarded, if you will. Both freer and no more free than before.

From an early age individuals are taught what to believe. By their parents, by the educational system, politicians and so forth. This happens before the individual is capable of critical thought.

If the individual develops critical thinking, they have a chance to reevaluate all they know, and rid themselves of the false beliefs of others.

The "invisible bonds" are the beliefs of others, and one is still inherently free, because one by virtue of their own mental faculty holds the key to the lock. — Tzeentch

So for example if a kid were raised in a, oh I don't know, heavy libertarian culture and eventually applied their God given critical thinking skills to discover that they've been manipulated, would they throw off the invisible chains and go on to undo the damage and work to help empower the working class?

More seriously, if I'm following correctly it appears to be a catch 22 situation. The freer a person becomes the more responsibility they assume, but the more responsibility they assume the less free they become.

Most are enslaved in their formative years and never escape their (mostly psychological) bonds, sadly. — Tzeentch

Most (who isn’t?) enslaved by invisible bonds but are inherently free. Any way you can help me understand that?

You may not believe this...

Scepticism is fair enough, but it has to be aimed at the actual teachings. — FrancisRay

You’re not being clear. First you say it’s a matter of belief, and that is of course the actual case, but then end in a kind of weasely way suggest misapprehension. The first noble truth isn’t part of the actual teachings of Buddhism???

If a person is actually free then they can freely assume responsibility. So why is there such an apparent lack of it? It seems to be the case that only when accept the fact that we’re not free, accept our interdependence, that we may tend to become more responsible. And because we’re a social species this acceptance may provide meaning and an enhanced sense of well-being, feeling part of something greater than ourselves.

Man is born free and without responsibility. — Tzeentch

Man is born utterly dependent, actually, and compared to other mammals remains that way for a very long time. Man is also a social species and is therefore irrevocably tied to others of his kind. Man is also completely dependent on his enviornment and is not independent or free in that way.

Responsibility can only be a result of his own voluntary actions. Responsibility is assumed, and not imposed. — Tzeentch

Right, that's the problem, not enough assuming.

I can partly agree with you because I'm not sure that we know what the costs really are yet and 'the opposite' could be worse. I'm also not sure that we know the opposite or know what's possible. This is where the road branches to progressive or conservative, I guess.

According to selectorate theory particular forms of governance can be irrelevant. It has to do with concentrations of power.

And were people fundamentally unhappy before the introduction of political parties? — Apollodorus

Odd question because it assumes people are fundamentally unhappy with political parties and it's unclear what 'fundamentally unhappy' even means in this context. I imagine that many are happy that the party system can be so divisive because they benefit from its divisiveness.

Personally I wouldn’t have it any other way. — NOS4A2

Naturally, because it's worked out okay for you so far.

There's a lot of irresponsibility in 'free society' and it has an ever escalating cost. I can only imagine that either you deny the cost or simply don't give a fuck. Whatever the case may be, it's a free society so you're cool.

Baker speaks of taking Buddhist premises for granted and then eventually coming to believe them. His meaning is unclear but it's pretty clear that he's referring to the 4NTs when he (assuming 'he' cuz I'm a lazy chauvinist) mentions 'premises'. It all hinges on the 1st NT so it is key. The first is that life is suffering or dissatisfaction, to put it bluntly. There's no way to view the situation, view life, where this is actually the case. Life is comprised of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize your immorality there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize emptiness or your 'true nature' there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If we can see satisfaction as dissatisfaction then why can't we see it the other way around, or the way it actually appears to be?

So what, then, is the problem with individualism? — NOS4A2

In a word: responsibility. People like freedom but responsibility is a big bummer.

Sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying. I didn't realize that you were only referring to Baker in the OP. Anyway, Baker's criticism is that the doctrine is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have an idea of what he means and don't disagree.

It's good to be in the small coalition of power in an autocracy but the people always do better in a democracy, I understand.

i was trying to point out that I see no rejection of Buddhism. — FrancisRay

I suspect that nothing would convince you otherwise. Am I right? Be honest.

in a society that aims to enforce diversity, the tensions that arise between groups holding different views tend to be more and more accentuated. — Apollodorus

On the other hand, Jim Crow laws, for example, didn't seem to ease the tensions in race relations very well. Perhaps those Southern Democrats weren't up to date on the latest political psychology journals.

Thanks, Isaac, that’s helpful.

Or perhaps beachgoers all jacked-up on ice cream swim more erratically and farther out to sea and the sharks don't sense the added sweeteners at all. Again, someone must do a study.

I don't know what the critter thing is about. You can safely drop me into the general 'animal lover' category though, though I'm not crazy about sharks.

Perhaps sharks are attracted to ice cream lovers for some as yet inexplicable reason. We just don't know. Someone needs to do a study.

if that someone has the statistics to back up his conclusion then his investigation can hardly be dismissed as "nonsense". — Apollodorus

I'm only familiar with MFT so my comments are limited to that theory. You re-quoted this from The Righteous Mind:

Conservatives react more strongly than liberals to signs of danger, including the threat of germs and contamination, and even low-level threats such as sudden blasts of white noise

This is pivotal to MFT?

I like the way Klein casually mentions "A virus isn’t just any threat, some researchers say. It is the threat at the root of these psychological cleavages." What researchers and how did they did they arrive at that conclusion?

My takeaway from MFT is that what separates us politically is mere social constructs and not particular traits or moral intuitions. Isn't everyone afraid of disease and death? Doesn't everyone value loyalty and fairness? Does being a member of tree-hugger clan mean that you have to think and act in a particular way? Sure, to be in good standing, but circumstances change and what it means to be a tree-hugger may change with it.

Is MFT even considered part of political psychology?

@Isaac

I think any 'traits' we identify are socially mediated constructions, not features of the psyche that can be 'discovered' by any experimental set-up. So the premise is flawed from the start, but this has been at issue for over twenty years, so the likes of Klein and Haidt are just being disingenuous pretending otherwise.
— Isaac

It’s been awhile since I read Righteous Minds but I seem to recall the ‘foundations’ being regarded as social constructs. Constructs that are based on moral intuitions that we all possess. You’re against this intuitionism? — praxis

I'm guessing that you're not comfortable with the term 'trait' because it may imply inborn and immutable qualities rather than something like ingrained habits or socially mediated conditioning? We each have particular conditioning or ingrained habits. I can't see how that's disputable.

Also, there are studies on moral intuition that experiment with babies, such as the following.



Going back to the stupid article that Maw referenced, it appeared to intentionally stress a flawed premise to try proving that the whole enterprise is weak in its explanatory or predictive power. From my understanding of it that premise is not stressed or pivotal to the theory.