That was superb, thank you for the link. Very relevant to my work.

I think this is important to emphasise because too often - in my opinion - does social discussion focus on the 'psychology' or the ‘values' of individuals involved in any one situation. — StreetlightX

How can it not, though? Is there an individual or are we collectively better off being saturated by such a system that wall-e is nothing more than a disruption to this absence of self-awareness? Was the BNL system formulated to save humanity from self-destruction, the destruction of individualism or has being on 'autopilot' as mindless drones actually destroyed humanity? It is a very difficult dilemma because the problem, for me anyway, is moral development or the lack thereof because what initiates any authentic understanding of the difference between right and wrong is demonstrated by a type of individual consciousness. This consciousness is found in the curiosity that leads to love, Eva, the one in search of 'life' because if we do what we are told as automatons - including acts of "good" - that don't stem from this individual consciousness, everyone would be sociopathic since none of our feelings would be real.

A person without any sense of moral consciousness would indeed be compelled to a system that takes advantage of the infantile or instinctual nature of the brain and so the axiom to this mind control is psychological because it stimulates the pleasures of leading the 'path of the least resistance'.

Is there an individual or are we collectively better off being saturated by such a system — TimeLine

But I don't see an either-or relation here: we are individuals to the extent that we belong to a 'system', or rather a series of systems that generally travels under the name 'society': the relevant question is one of relation - what kind of relation to society is it that we want to cultivate? Not: are we better off in a society or not? The latter question isn't one that can be entertained in any meaningful way, as far as I'm concerned. Else you end up peddling liberal sophistries about individuals set against society and so on - a total non-starter for any meaningful political discussion.

One way to illustrate what I'm trying to get at here is with another example maybe. Here is Corey Robin, a political scientist, talking about the discourse of 'norm erosion' that has become popular in talking about Trump these days:

"So we have a discourse of norm erosion that allows us to reel in shock at the way that Trump talks to senators, governors, and citizens, but that discourse has nothing to say about the very system, the very text, that produced this president that talks in this terrible and shocking way. Indeed, insofar as some of the peddlers of that discourse believe that these cherished norms ultimately issue from the system and the text itself, and that it is that system and that text that need protecting, one can say that the discourse of norm erosion actually prevents us from tackling the very system, the very text, that produced this president that talks in this terrible and shocking way."

The overvalorization of the individual partakes of the exact same problem: I mean, of course Trump is a complete monstrosity, but to focus on the personal failings of Trump is to miss the fact that there was an entire system which put him into power. And any intervention into the state of things ought to pitch itself at that system, not at Trump, per se. The liberal media obsession with Trump's personality does as much to feed into the very conditions that brought him into power as anything else. Part of why the media are having such a hard time grappling with the flood of sexual abuse allegations is in part this same attitude: the petty gossip-mag obsession with 'personalities' which blind us to system-level incentive structures that - however subtly and implicitly - enable such behaviour.

But I don't see an either-or relation here: we are individuals to the extent that we belong to a 'system', or rather a series of systems that generally travels under the name 'society': the relevant question is one of relation - what kind of relation to society is it that we want to cultivate? Not: are we better off in a society of not? The latter question isn't one that can be entertained in any meaningful way, as far as I'm concerned. — StreetlightX

That latter question is a very dangerous (albeit kind of awesome) place to tread and you would need to tread carefully. I fear empiricism because moral consciousness is not sourced by an ability to transcend the system making us trapped by our sensory experiences, which would make it justifiable to cultivate a system best suited to this inevitable subservience and that is what politics, community, family do as each interpret and formulate system upon system in an attempt reconcile the individual with society. From my favourite film, Ghost in a Shell (the anime of course): “If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. It's simple: over-specialise, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death.”

What we refer to as 'individualism' borne from this system is ideological; are the answers that I give in a survey my opinion as an 'individual' or have the questions been formulated to reinforce collective standards that I align myself with and in doing so trick myself into believing that the choices I make benchmark my individualism in contrast to those who choose differently to me. This 'individualism' - as is visible in the US - is an imagined construct where the system has enabled the conditions that mirage individual consciousness when really they blindly move in masses. But it does not make our capacity of thinking with an authentic conscience or consciousness impossible.

Why do we need to separate free-will and determinism and create some sort of conflict between the two? Why do we need to separate the individual and society? Can we not just transcend through it?

You realize the ultimate move against the incentive structures as a system is for individuals to choose antinatalism. Of course, the goal is not to make a new system that is set up for successful outcomes for antinatalism, but rather it is antinatalism as rebellion against all systems. It is Wall-E moving off his predetermined track, but to its furthest extent. Keep in mind that all systems are instrumental in their own way, and the new system set up by the captain at the end will be instrumental in keeping other paths of least resistance going, but for no reason.

But whats the point of an 'authentic consciousness' (a phrase which I'm afraid reeks of romantic moralism for me) in a society which can make neither heads nor tails of such an ideal? To ask Adorno's question: can one live a good life in a bad life? I'm not convinced one can answer this in the affirmative. Or to cite one of Zizek's well known themes: genocides are full of 'authenticity' - there is no ethnic cleansing without poetry. Authenticity is only as powerful as the conditions which allow it to flourish.

Also Antinatalism lol.

Was that responding to my post? I never mentioned authentic consciousness. Are you saying the antinatalist stance presupposes some authentic conscience stance towards life? If so, can you define that term more clearly other than me obviously putting two words together to make my own conclusion? Authenticity in existentialism is defined I guess as being true to one's own character without trying to fit into a role. It is going to a shitty job but not losing yourself in the role of the shitty job. The only value in this existentialist theme, to me, is that it tries to rip you out of taking the roles you play in any sociological event too seriously. However, authenticity itself i part of the system. What better way to make you think that you are the hero of your own destiny than this idea of the "authentic individual" as opposed to those who take their roles in society too seriously. What better types of tropes than movies like the Matrix that pretend like you can free yourself as the authentic individual?

Nah that was to Timeline.

How it is you seemingly quote Zizek and yet purport relevance to what kind of relation to society it is that we want to cultivate is beyond me. That is how the faux 'authenticity' behind genocides are legitimised just like how power is reinforced by so-called 'individualism' where opinions move in masses. IF there is authenticity within this consciousness, there would be universal morals and genocide would cease to exist since the 'poetry' here is ideology.

Ah, ostracism by omission. Got it.

That is how the faux 'authenticity' behind genocides... — TimeLine

But Zizek's point is that the authenticity of those who carry out genocides is anything but 'faux': it's the real deal. The point is that 'authenticity' is an entirely 'neutral' element, it can be put to use in any which way. The problem isn't the 'content' of authenticity: it's it's very form which can be appropriated in any which way.

See:
- on the discussion of greed and morality. Discussion of poetry @ 8mins; Discussion of failure of 'moral' approaches to political problems @ 12:30mins.

I watched it, and I really think it's BS. Obviously, the people who created such videos and theories see themselves as "stuck inside" some system that they cannot escape, because they always focus on what others are doing instead of what they're doing. Their failings are the responsibility of others - others are failing them, that's why things aren't going well for them. They always point their finger for their sucky lives to the other. They create a mental prison and a fantasy for themselves, in order to avoid addressing their own failings.

I prefer this YouTube video:

Schwarzenegger initially has the social system opposed to him, but he finds a way to convert it to his side, and then becomes unstoppable, and gets all the favouritism he needs to fulfil his goal.

In this world, nobody will put victory in your pocket. You have to earn it, you have to struggle and fight by yourself, you alone can make something of yourself. Not the community, etc. - that is nonsense. The community is always mobilised and used as a tool by individuals. By the Alexanders, the Khans, the Ghandis, the Buddhas, etc.

In Eastern Europe there is a wave of extremist politics, mostly socialist, but also some far-right movements. All these people are blaming the others - it's the fault of the others that things are bad. The politicians, etc. But that's false. It's your fault - you weren't smart enough to control all those corrupt politicians, etc. Intelligence can never blame its failings on the others. It is always its own failure to manipulate social conditions as it needed to manipulate them.

Peter Thiel wrote about this, but millennials are a failed and depressed generation, by and large, most of them will fail to make anything out of their lives. They won't even reach the levels of their parents. They are pessimistic and do not take responsibility for their failures, always looking to blame the other.

The very dichotomous categories by which you frame your reading of the video - in terms of 'society' against the 'individual', 'community' against the 'self' - is exactly what it aims to contest. It's not clear that you understood it at all, which is unfortunate.

Your whole reading of the video - in terms of 'society' against the 'individual', 'community' against the 'self' - is exactly what it aims to contest. It's not clear that you understood it at all, which is unfortunate. — StreetlightX

Yes, I am well aware that that's what it wants to contest. I don't see it as successfully doing that at all. Just a fantasy.

It wants to say that the self or the individual is "created" by society and the social system around, but the individual with a community of other individuals has the power to change the system. How's this different from Marxism? :s (let's see, it's not... )

Workers of the world unite. Revolution. That's what it's saying. And I say revolution is bunk, because revolution is guided by an individual, not by a community.

You seem to confuse disagreement for misunderstanding, by the way.

Marxism? Try basic social science.

Marxism? Try basic social science. — StreetlightX

Marxism has by and large become identified with social science. Marx always claimed he was doing social (and economic) science, not Marxism for that matter.

Ah well I guess reality has a Marxist bent then. So much the better for reality.

Ah well I guess reality has a Marxist bent then. — StreetlightX

Yeah, I get you claim that, I'd like to see some proof. I look around, and I look through history, and I see that the big changes in society occur as a result of individuals, not collective action (unless that collective action is also driven by an individual, like Ghandi).

It's bizarre the way you keep repeating the same mistake as if you wanted to prove how necessary the discussion is. Thanks. I think.

It's bizarre the way you keep repeating the same mistake as if you wanted to prove how necessary the discussion is. Thanks. I think. — Baden

Outline the mistake, show how it is a mistake, etc. - do some work. Not just pointing fingers.

Here are some in-depth, rigorously researched studies:

http://bfy.tw/A0J5

https://goo.gl/8sYr6B

Don't you think a sensible first step in sociological critique would be to examine the lens through which you yourself view social relations instead of simply presenting it as the ultimate viewing aid? If you don't do that you'll blindly project onto your critique the results of your own immersion in the social milieu you find yourself in and that will completely undermine your analysis. So, yes through your unexamined lens in the context of the particular society that's formed you, you think we should look at individuals rather than society as a whole when understanding social change. That's not sociological critique in itself but simply a demonstration of what happens when it's not undertaken.

Don't you think a sensible first step in sociological critique would be to examine the lens through which you yourself view social relations instead of simply presenting it as the ultimate viewing aid? — Baden

If one happens to wear specs, this can easily enough be managed, but removing one's eyeball to examine it is not so sensible. Instead, use the mirror of relationship - visit an optician.

Well, in anticipation of Agu's reply I was going to talk about the deeper issue of being unable to escape a hall of mirrors but at least knowing you're in one, which is a parallel metaphor I think.

Don't you think a sensible first step in sociological critique would be to examine the lens through which you yourself view social relations instead of simply presenting it as the ultimate viewing aid? — Baden

No, actually I don't. It's not any more sensible than when writing an instruction manual for welding I would examine the lens through which I actually view the process of welding instead of simply presenting it as the actual view that must be adopted.

Likewise, I cannot separate the successful life from the way the successful man views life. If you get out of the spectacles you can see things differently, but that doesn't actually help with the process of living well. One of the goals of philosophy is the good life, and it seems to me that the lens chosen are part of what makes the good life possible.

So yes, my view of social relations is the one I use. But why do I use it? Because I've seen it be successful for me and for others.

If you don't do that you'll blindly project onto your critique the results of your own immersion in the social milieu you find yourself in and that will completely undermine your analysis. So, yes through your unexamined lens in the context of the particular society that's formed you, you think we should look at individuals rather than society as a whole when understanding social change. — Baden

Again, the question is what forms an agent of change (whether positive or negative)? And the answer is, among other things, a particular way of viewing the world. How can you disengage the process of causing change from the spectacles that permit one to see that process itself?

What I love about it is that it speaks to what I think ought to be the basic analytical instinct for anyone attempting to discussing social problems: the instinct to look not at the behaviour of individuals, but at the social milieux by which any such behaviour is conditioned. — StreetlightX

From the above, the question of the OP is something like: "How do we most successfully approach a critical analysis of social problems?" and the thesis is that we look out at the social milieu not in to the psychology or behaviour of individuals. The question that follows then is not "What forms an agent of change"? but something like "How do we allow for collective change" and the answer is by aiming to understand the nature of the collective and the forces it has on individuals, their goals, their behaviours and so on, so as to tackle the problem at its root rather than focus on the branches.

And you can't even make of sense of the notion of individualism without recourse to its relationship to the social and its emergence in certain types of societies nor can you make sense of any particular individual nor can any individual even make sense of himself except in terms of relations to external and internalised social structures without which he/she couldn't possibly function and which then create categories that only too make sense in context: sane/insane, acceptable/unacceptable, successful/unsuccessful, honour/dishonour and so on. So you need to look out. You'll always to some extent be in a hall of mirrors but at least you can realize that's where you are or you haven't even got to step one. Look in to an individual and all you'll see is shit as Zizek would put it, some of which will inevitably be shit you put there, historians put there, speculation, excuses, stories. Shit basically in terms of understanding. Look instead at actions in context, and at each layer of context right up to the macro-social layer and its own meta-social context.

Anyway, I suppose the inspiration for this discussion, and a decent example of the point, were the recent discussions about sexual discrimination, particularly the one @Sapientia started. Some of us may have approached this in the wrong way by pointing out the bad behaviour of individuals and working our way out from there. Then you get bogged down in arguments about what constitutes bad behaviour, what were the intentions of the protagonists and so on. But if you look at the macro social level and ask yourselves what social forces have led to the creation of workplaces like these and should those forces be reinforced or weakened, the answer seems clearer. I don't want to re-run that argument but zooming out is often a good way to make sense of your moral instincts without needing to get involved in micro moral issues many of which can turn out to be irrelevant.

It occurs to me too by the way that your constant refrain with regard to Trump is that he is a product of his society, a society that must change, and rather than focus on his failings you tend to focus on and criticize the forces that shaped him. Why then take the opposite tack here?

(Incidentally my vpn isn't working so I couldn't watch all the vid but I saw the first few minutes and got the general idea I think.)

The question that follows then is not "What forms an agent of change"? but something like "How do we allow for collective change" — Baden

That's not an interesting perspective for me, since I look and see that historical change is made by the individual, not by the collective (unless again, the collective is used by the individual as a tool for change). If I don't like the society I live in, or my social conditions, it's up to me to change them. There's no one else who can change them for me.

And for that matter, why should I (or anyone else) even be interested in "collective" change?

But if you look at the macro social level and ask yourselves what social forces have led to the creation of workplaces like these and should those forces be reinforced or weakened, the answer seems clearer. — Baden

I don't see this at all being like this. Rather some individual says "I enjoy sexually teasing women, so I want to look for a workplace where this is acceptable - and if no such workplace exists, then I will make one". So the evil does, in fact, come from the individual, and not from the social structure. Sure, this individual lives in a society. So what? He wants to live as his heart desires in that society - if his heart desires that he lives like Nero in debauchery, etc. that's what he will try to do. The social structure will maybe restrict that. But his heart's desire will not change. The moment he gets an opportunity, he will act. So it just ends up being hypocrisy, just changing social structure.

It occurs to me too by the way that your constant refrain with regard to Trump is that he is a product of his society, a society that must change, and rather than focus on his failings you tend to focus on and criticize the forces that shaped him. Why then take the opposite tack here? — Baden

I criticise the hypocrisy of the media and Hollywood who point the finger at Trump, even though they are that which actually spreads this worldview. Now, I have not seen evidence that Trump is a super-effeminate guy like say, Silvio Berlusconi. So I can just assume that he wants to portray the macho-guy appearance because he's been taught that it's cool, and that's how alpha males behave. His desire is to be admired, not to have as much sex as possible. So having sex for him is part of being admired. In his case, I tend to think that it's something that he ended up doing out of a failure of character and the society he lives in.

But with regards to someone like Silvio Berlusconi, in that case, I think he's not doing it because of his society, but rather that he actually enjoys having sex with as many women as possible, and is willing to bend social structures to fulfil that wish, even if it ends up humiliating him.

So evil can flow both from society to individual and from individual to society, but its place of origin is always the individual's heart. The individual has to assent to that evil.