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

Defining everything in it as something good and creating a juxtaposition between individualism and collectivism. Those who promote individualism often see any traces of collectivism as something bad. Yet not all collectivism is bad: that our society works there has to be some kind of collectivism, even if many collectivist ideologies do indeed have been disasterous.

And that individualism often boils down to hedonism and narcissism.

Individualism is basically a ruling class ideology 'trickled down' onto the working class to stave off solidarity and class consciousness. And it is trickled down because it helps preserve the power of that capitalist class who are the biggest collectivists on the planet, and whose level of class organization and institutional cooperation would make any 'individualist' drop dead. It's the opposite of exactly what works to accrue political and economic power, so of course, it is propagandized as exactly what the working class ought to aim for. It doesn't help that the epicentre of its intellectual development is the US, which is among the most dysfunctional societies on Earth whose ideational offerings ought to be resisted along with the rest of any trash that comes out of that shithole country.

I like the national challenge.
We do have Johnny Cash singing to prisoners.
Walt Whitman and the future rappers.
The odd relationship between Thoreau's and Emerson's writings is a thing.
The easy swagger of Billy James upon the scene.
The brutal satire of the twentieth century.

It is not all cottage chese and cofevfe.

Trash, all of it.

Very well, then.
Adieu.

Individualism here in the Anglo-American world, meaning classical liberalism & Right-Libertarianism, is B.S. and a pathology that destroys everything. You only need to see the reaction to COVID the past year to see the culmination to it. It mostly means pursue wealth at the expense of others.

I do want to add to the rest of opinions though, that I came from a Korean family and conservative Asian structures are extreme in the other way around in which the individual is under-valued, what the individual desires for their own path in life and not just conform to the others' expectations. Anyone who observed how these cultures operate would know it's extremely unpleasant.. So I think there is something to individualism of a certain more restricted kind, if you would call it that. You need a balance between it and a focus on collective interests (the left-wing Anarchist tradition is an example that emphasizes both), and it's obviously swung way too much in one direction here.

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

I see two major kinds of individualism which are not to be confused:
1. Entitled/expansive individualism
and
2. Defensive individualism.

Entitled/expansive individualism is the kind where the person thinks they are entitled to take over the world and that the world owes them. Such individualists don't care about others, other than how they can use them. Such people feel good about themselves, consider themselves good and innocent.

Defensive individualism can emerge in response to other people's entitled/expansive individualism. It's the position one can take when one realizes one is left to themselves and that other people are eager to exploit one. Such individualists are anxious, always on guard.

Externally, the two types of individualism can sometimes look the same, but in bears emphasizing that they are motivated differently.

In other words, "individualists" bullshit themselves with delusions like "libertinism", "social darwinism", "metaphysical libertarianism" & "Objectivism". — 180 Proof

I wonder though whether Rand's individualism is actually a case of defensive individualism. Rand's individualist is coming from a position of lack, from a position of being a prospective victim due to his exploitability (due to poverty, lack of resources). It's not the spoiled upper class individualist who was born with a silver spoon, believing that the world is his oyster.

Man is born free and without responsibility. Responsibility can only be a result of his own voluntary actions. Responsibility is assumed, and not imposed. — Tzeentch

Fucking bullshit fairy tale. Man is born as a wailing, incapacitated blob of fat entirely dependent on other people to take care of it.

And yet he is free. In fact, children are more free than most adults.

Man is born utterly dependent, actually, and compared to other mammals remains that way for a very long time. — praxis

Dependency does not detract from his essential freedom. Unless you wish to argue individuals may claim moral authority over others?

Man is also a social species and is therefore irrevocably tied to others of his kind. — praxis

I don't think that applies to all of mankind, or is inherently true for all individuals.

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

Perhaps. Maybe there is too much imposing.

I think control is counter-productive to individuals developing into independent adults capable of taking responsibility in the first place.

Man is born into a society not a "state of nature". — Fooloso4

What is society, and how did it take man out of this "state of nature"?

Man is born into a society not a "state of nature".
— Fooloso4

What is society, and how did it take man out of this "state of nature"? — Tzeentch

Society is a group of people. Here we are talking about a politically structured society.

The state of nature is a fiction created by social contract and natural rights theorists - Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and others. Man has never lived in a state of nature. There has always been some organization, starting with the family.

Society is a group of people. — Fooloso4

And this group of people can lay a claim to the individual's freedom or impose responsibilities, then?

Man has never lived in a state of nature. There has always been some organization, starting with the family. — Fooloso4

I don't think a state of nature implies an absence of families.

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

Essentially, it gets in the way of groups whose express purpose is controlling individuals.

The individual v. the collective is an 80mph fast ball coming right down the center of the plate.

99.9... % of all good that is accomplished in this world is made possible via human compassion (a state only individuals can manifest). OTOH, 99.9...% of all the evil perpetrated in this world is made possible by groups (whose primary intention is always the same...power and money grab).

And this group of people can lay a claim to the individual's freedom or impose responsibilities, then? — Tzeentch

Does that not happen where you are from?

I don't think a state of nature implies an absence of families. — Tzeentch

then

The family is a social structure with rules and differences in power. It is not freedom without constraint.

Does that not happen where you are from? — Fooloso4

Oh, sure. I just don't believe any of it to be legitimate.

The family is a social structure with rules and differences in power. It is not freedom without constraint. — Fooloso4

I don't think a state of nature implies freedom without constraint either. I'm having trouble seeing how this relates to my earlier posts.

Freedom without constraint not restraint.

Fixed.

Individualism here in the Anglo-American world, meaning classical liberalism & Right-Libertarianism, is B.S. and a pathology that destroys everything. You only need to see the reaction to COVID the past year to see the culmination to it. It mostly means pursue wealth at the expense of others.

Equating individualism with avarice is a common argument. However avarice is a vice of individuals, not of individualism. Individualism encompasses the charitable as much as it does the self-interested, but we wouldn’t say individualism is charitable.

The response to Covid was a collectivist project if I’ve ever seen one. Entire industries were at the mercy of governments; civil liberties were scattered to the wind; prison terms were used to describe our situation. As such, certain individuals benefitted while others were mostly restrained from even trying, their livelihoods sacrificed on the alter of “national security”, “the common good”, which, in the mouths of those in state power, is always their own interests.

I think any claims to another's essential freedom is to be looked down upon and dismissed. One of the few claims for which I think that to be the case. Would you object to this? — Tzeentch

What if your ability to live where, in the manner in which you've become accustomed and act as you please and state what you state is the sole result of claiming the essential freedoms of another? Odds are it was. So, you don't quite believe this, you believe in protecting a familiar status quo that serves you and little more, just another case of looking out for number one. Don't we all I suppose.

Man is born free and without responsibility. Responsibility can only be a result of his own voluntary actions. Responsibility is assumed, and not imposed. — Tzeentch

People have themselves to look out for. Meanwhile you need to eat, drink, have access to shelter, maybe a little entertainment, and social interaction. Who's going to do or provide all that for you if not yourself? Me? Your neighbor? Who will provide for him? And so on. We're not in Eden anymore. We're all slaves to our biology, human needs that must be met with limited resources. Unless you believe in enslavement of others to meet these needs, one would best saddle up and smell the coffee.

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.

What if your ability to live where, in the manner in which you've become accustomed and act as you please and state what you state is the sole result of claiming the essential freedoms of another? — Outlander

Then shame on whoever did that claiming.

So, you don't quite believe this, you believe in protecting a familiar status quo that serves you and little more, just another case of looking out for number one. — Outlander

I believe what I stated, and this is just an underhanded (and sleep-inducingly old) attempt at framing it as selfishness.

What makes you believe I am so fond of the status quo?

If a person is actually free then they can freely assume responsibility. So why is there such an apparent lack of it? — praxis

While individuals are inherently free, they must still actively accept that freedom, and few do.

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

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. — praxis

For some those things may very well be true. For others, maybe not.

I am in favor of individuals making such choices freely.

These inane platitudes aren't an argument. A baby isn't free anymore than a tortoise on its back. On the other hand, if that's the freedom you value, this can be easily arranged. We'll give you debilitating drugs causing you to lose speech and control of your motor functions. Enjoy your freedom.

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?

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.

I just don't believe any of it to be legitimate. — Tzeentch

This depends on the assumptions about human beings that you bring to the question. If you ascribe to some theory of social atomism, that is, radical autonomy, then any constraint on your freedom will be seen as illegitimate. If, on the other hand you think human beings are by nature social animals then there must be constraints if we are to live together in peace.

If, on the other hand you think human beings are by nature social animals then there must be constraints if we are to live together in peace. — Fooloso4

I don't require constraints to live in peace with others.

As such, certain individuals benefitted while others were mostly restrained — NOS4A2

Covid is not selective. Anyone who avoids getting it benefits. Those around them to whom it may spread benefit. Business benefits by not having a workforce that is sick or dead and goods and services they cannot sell because a large segment of the population is sick or dead.

Even with all the measures put in place covid is the third leading cause of death in the US. What would the numbers be like if nothing had been done?

You say nothing about masks. Some act as though a mask mandate is the height of tyranny.