surely it is true that man evolved as a social creature before he developed a genuine sense of self? — Pantagruel

Yes, I’d probably agree with that.

So the individual developed from the community/state.

The existence of the state is owed to the mistrust we have of each other - no one can be depended upon with 100% certainty and, need I mention, this isn't a fault. After all trust is a great burden to bear and no sensible person would impose that on his friends, family, strangers and even enemies. We all have our problems that we lose sleep over; why add to that? Thus the state is born; yes, an ignominous birth one might say but look at the bright side - we're at least trying to make things better

The existence of the state is owed to the mistrust we have of each other — TheMadFool

Is that really the case? It seems to me that the state and the individual are an organic growth of necessity and co-existence.

“ The state is the organization while the government is the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy that controls the state apparatus at a given time.[27][28][29] That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.[29] Wikipedia.”

Don’t you think it’s the governments that can be viewed with mistrust, and government actions that individuals regard as impositions on what they regard as their sovereignty. The middle classes have probably been one of the great stabilising forces of the state with their apparent acceptance and support of social mores and laws. For many they’re regarded as a suffocating force that quells individuality, but I’ve often though it’s their stabilising presence that allows for the existence of the individual who rejects their moral and practical beliefs. But the idea of the middle class seems to be dying, that the gap has put them on either the side of the rich or the side of the struggling . I don’t know if that’s true or not.

Many more people than before regard themselves as individuals, though they are obviously not, it’s really a consumer marketing tool. But it’s a big enough idea to challenge the stability of the state. Society is more fragmented than its ever been.

If, as an exercise, I regard the human body as the state and the organs as the individual then it’s clear that the state/body feeds the organs and maintains the health of the body through the health of the organs. But if the organs reject the body only outside interference can remedy that. So does that suggest then that the state must come first.

I just copied this from The Lounge post on nudity:

“ The larger and more sophisticated the society, the more stratified it is by status and property, the more severe the customs imposed are out of a need to maintain order.” @Nils Loc

Isn’t it an irony that in a place of business or corporation the individual, with their skills, submits to the greater good of the company for its success. — Brett

While I believe that I understand what you are trying to say by using the word "submit", it may not be a good word choice. As you can see, submit has obtained the baggage of having a negative connotation. Perhaps something along the line of, "works towards, or contributes to" would move your idea forward.

You pose one of those eternal questions about individuals and their relationship to the powers that governs them (the state). Where does one start and the other end, and is there any overlap? How much of an individual's rights can be subsumed by the state, and the individual still be free to follow their individual inclinations? Great question, yet, hard to answer definitively! Why? Because we are all individuals and have different viewpoints of where the line lays between individuals and the state.

You pose one of those eternal questions about individuals and their relationship to the powers that governs them (the state). — Neuron420

I don’t think I do believe it’s the state that governs. It seems to me to be a sort of symbiotic relationship. It’s government that imposes power from outside or above.

Because we are all individuals and have different viewpoints of where the line lays between individuals and the state. — Neuron420

Is this true or just a concept we have of ourselves? Just how many contributing individual are there out there making a difference because if their “individuality”? And in the end what does that word actually mean?

Is that really the case? It seems to me that the state and the individual are an organic growth of necessity and co-existence — Brett

Can you expand on the words in bold? What constitutes this "necessity" and why is "coexistence" relevant to your thesis?

I have no thesis. I’ve asked a question that I have no answer to so I hoped to explore it with others here.
However, in answer to your question regarding “necessity and co-existence”, it’s relevant because they need each other, that they are not really separate entities. It’s necessary that they co-exist for the survival of both.

I have no thesis. I’ve asked a question that I have no answer to so I hoped to explore it with others here.
However, in answer to your question regarding “necessity and co-existence”, it’s relevant because they need each other, that they are not really separate entities. It’s necessary that they co-exist for the survival of both. — Brett

:up: :ok:

That’s true about personal needs, but are personal needs important enough for the general health of the community and future wellbeing?

You mean if everyone was to just follow their personal needs would that be enough for a health community and ensure well being? Is that what you're asking? I'd say not necessarily. I feel like what we're missing here is culture. There's always a culture involved, and that culture can be helpful or harmful to ensuring those things you mention.

The state as you define it might belong in the background creating and enforcing laws but that idea of the state is a political tool, or mechanism, for the managing of the real state, which is the population at large.

You're saying the "real" state is the population?

The Australian Aboriginal culture is regarded as the oldest culture in the world and yet I don’t imagine they survived all that time through the concept of individuality. But it serves our modern culture to believe in the idea of individuality, it drives the economy.

My question is still, if we can, which should we choose?

Yes, in ancient times you couldn't just go off into the woods and form your own empire or even really survive. Of course community is needed - we all exist in communities for the most part unless someone wants to self-isolate, but I don't think that's really what's meant by "individualism." When I think "individualism" I more think freedom within a society - especially societies which strongly encourage its members to conform to a certain mold (think religious societies or maybe military societies or others).

Your question - which should we choose - is a good one, and it's debated. I see the two choices as on a spectrum and I think we likely need to find some middle ground. I think culture should exist it's fine if its pushes some messages, but ultimately the individual should be free to make his/her own choices (within reason) and be free to break from or challenge the culture if they wish. The individual should almost always be able to challenge the collective. The sole exception I can think of to this would be military societies where it's not acceptable for, say, a Private to challenge a General.

You're saying the "real" state is the population? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. It’s the mass created, like a beehive.

One of my questions is can we, could we, sublimate our individual desires in service of the greater good. Assuming that was the result? There are people who do this without coercion.

I’m not even considering this in terms of a socialist state, or any centralised, authoritarian state, when we consider the opposition of the individual to the state. I’m thinking of it within a reasonably balanced political and social environment.

Individualism, of the individual, is like the idea that all men are equal. Nature says differently, but we chose to try and live by the idea. But it constantly need picking up as it stumbles. If the idea and value of individuality is so important and valuable then why does it threaten the state? And why is it a threat and is that a good or bad thing; see my reference to Copernicus or even the drive towards civil rights for blacks in America, or the vote for women

Edit: the individual must be free from the coercion of the state. But why and to what degree?

How does a movement begin? Is it begun by one lone individual or is there some other mechanism at work? Or does the state itself, unwittingly, create the movement?

So these are not transhistorical terms, and it is very much an anachronism to ask which came first. Someone posing a similar question in feudal society might have asked: who came first? Priests, farmers, or soldiers? — StreetlightX

Certainly not farmers. We know that much.

From the gist of the opening page I think I know what you’re thinking about.

Simply put it’s extremely nuanced. Generally speaking humans operate as individual beings and we navigate between what is familiar and what is novel. Being able to differentiate ourselves in a landscape (physical/social/mental) defines what an ‘individual’ is. The ‘state’ part of this is our communal inclinations - we’re not solitary animals (no animal is broadly speaking: meaning the world of every animal is dynamic and so they are never cut-off from it).

What is ‘best’ is a pointless question. The question is more about ‘what are we?’ And the answer to that is a continual process by which we engage in life (actively or passively until death).

The very fact that we split up these ideas as polar items adds further weight to what I‘ve just said. Others are quite right in saying that one doesn’t exist without the other. The way attitudes change does certainly change our parcelling up of these concepts and often enough leads to further separation for further investigation.

There is comfort and safety (possibly leading to stagnation), and hardship and risk (possibly leading to disorientation). Resting in either fully is fatal. Some people - due to personal circumstances - lean moe to one than the other; common factors include upbringing, age, sex, social statuses (within any given group), and health/fitness.

Another point worthy of consideration is the psychological role of the nation compared to that of religion. This is something that has been of significance for some time. What are your thoughts on those in line with the human ‘individual’?

Being able to differentiate ourselves in a landscape (physical/social/mental) defines what an ‘individual’ is. — I like sushi

That’s certainly true in defining us as conscious creatures. But after that, what? How many of us make a difference with our individuality, how many of us are unique, because isn’t that what’s meant by individuality?

What is ‘best’ is a pointless question. — I like sushi

I’m not sure about that. If I can agree to receive a vaccine imposed by the government, or accept restrictions of movement, all for the sake of the community or state, then is it not unreasonable to reconsider my ideas about how the state should be structured if it’s good for the state and consequently achieves the most good for the most people, and should I question my actual “value” as an individual, instead of an idea that satisfies my ego.

Another point worthy of consideration is the psychological role of the nation compared to that of religion. This is something that has been of significance for some time. What are your thoughts on those in line with the human ‘individual’? — I like sushi

Once it made sense to submit to God. The reward was eternal life in the presence of God. There was little or no reward in the present. Everything was defined by that idea. Of course it was riddled with injustice. But the state as a psychological creature, as opposed to a religious creature, does not seem to be an improvement, and it’s the psychological state that has placed the emphasis on the individual, because that’s where the disease or problem rested, down deeper than the state as it appeared. A happy person was bound to be more of a benefit than the weight of despair. So the emphasis on the individual. The healthy individual was bound to be a benefit but somehow that mutated into the idea that the individual was more important than the state.

There was more to it than the bold part ...

What is ‘best’ is a pointless question. The question is more about ‘what are we?’ And the answer to that is a continual process by which we engage in life (actively or passively until death). — I like sushi

Once it made sense to submit to God. The reward was eternal life in the presence of God. There was little or no reward in the present. Everything was defined by that idea. Of course it was riddled with injustice. But the state as a psychological creature, as opposed to a religious creature, does not seem to be an improvement, and it’s the psychological state that has placed the emphasis on the individual, because that’s where the disease or problem rested, down deeper than the state as it appeared. A happy person was bound to be more of a benefit than the weight of despair. So the emphasis on the individual. The healthy individual was bound to be a benefit but somehow that mutated into the idea that the individual was more important than the state. — Brett

I think there is just as good an argument from the position that religion developed our sense of individuality. The nation/state has probably exerted more force on the suppression of individualism than religion has - that said, both offer up a sense of identity which was more or less what I was getting at.

Note: Keep in mind ‘religion’ doesn’t require the belief in some deity and/or eternal life - that is just one prevalent iteration of the whole ‘religious’ scheme (as in our common Judeo-Christian heritage as English speaking subjects - we’re culturally entangled in this due to where and when we were born).

As for the part in bold ... why? This is your assumption. Personally speaking the most rewarding strides in my life haven’t been made wading through happiness - maybe you’ve been luckier? :D That said, I do kind of agree. It is not ‘happiness’ that bothers me but more it’s kind of glib use as some kind of ultimate achievement. It is a rather strange term when you think about it that eludes meaning even though we all have experience of it. That is what I was getting at with the ‘best’ point: it’s more about exploration and discovery than some fixed idea of ‘good’/‘bad,’ or ‘happy/sad’ polarity. After all the joys I have experience may pale into insignificance compared to yours or visa versa. We can only find out where we are on any scale of ‘better or worse’ by straddling life and riding it long and hard, and with good helpings of fear and bravery ... even then nothing is guaranteed, but at least it is SOMETHING rather than willful passivity, subjugation and a existential shrug at our sense of being.

There was more to it than the bold part ...

What is ‘best’ is a pointless question. The question is more about ‘what are we?’ And the answer to that is a continual process by which we engage in life (actively or passively until death).
— I like sushi — I like sushi

Yes there was more, but I don’t regard my question as about “what we are”. It’s more about what is the best way for us to be to give the most benefits to the most people? Your question related to the individual and their growth. “What we are” is the problem in that it presupposes the priority of the individual. My use of the word happiness probably should have been replaced with “healthy”, as in a “good citizen” in the sense that he/she contributes to the state instead of destabilising it.

And your post, intentionally or not, does bring the focus back to the individual, “We can only find out where we are on any scale of ‘better or worse’ by straddling life and riding it long and hard, and with good helpings of fear and bravery”. Instead of; how can I contribute in a way that creates the most wellbeing for the most people? If you think that your “exploration and discovery” is the way to do that then I’d like to hear in what way.

My question now is, I suppose, in what way are we contributing with our sense of individuality. What do you have to contribute that would create the most good for the most?

Yes there was more, but I don’t regard my question as about “what we are”. — Brett

‘What we are’ is the bedrock your question lies on though. To explain further, I meant that ‘what is best’ can only be addressed with a fuller understanding of ‘what we are’ - be this as an individual or otherwise. What is more the ‘best’ knowledge we have of the situation of ‘others’ is through ourselves (quite obviously: the ‘obvious,’ ironically, being something easily overlooked!)

What we are presupposes that we exist as humans. That is all. True enough we know this from our own individual perspectives, but that isn’t strictly speaking the same thing as ‘individualism’ - I grant you that.

Instead of; how can I contribute in a way that creates the most wellbeing for the most people? — Brett

Why would anyone in their right mind presume they know what is better for others? The only way is by throwing our personal perspective on others as if it is as good as identical to others. That seems inherently flawed to me, doesn’t it to you?

My question now is, I suppose, in what way are we contributing with our sense of individuality. What do you have to contribute that would create the most good for the most? — Brett

The most good for the most reeks of a kind of pandering to what others tell me is good, be this through societal conventions or otherwise, rather than what I arrive at as good through my necessarily painful and hard journey of coming to understand ‘what I am’ amongst ‘what we are’ as human beings living a life - which is an unfinished task and remains so (thankfully!)

Maybe I’m veering off-track here?

In short, I see it as much better for me and everyone else to do what I feel as being ‘best’ than to stick to some convention of what is ‘best’ - ie. Follow the nation/state rigidly. That is not to say and don’t see the great use of social agreements. I certainly expect that my wants/needs/desires will conflict with those of others, but I don’t have to, and don’t feel it’s ‘good’ to, adhere to social standards because ‘that is what people do’ ... I find that an unethical and intolerable position to cling to. If my ‘good’ is ‘wrong’ then I suffer the consequences as they come to me without any ‘blame’ to lay at the government, state, nation, god or anything or anyone else’s feet other than my own. I get back up, dust myself down - maybe weep a little - and then carry-on imbued with a ‘better,’ yet faulty, understanding of ‘what we are’ as individual humans among other humans, and what we are as independent beings apart from others.

Sometimes it is more comforting and healthy to adhere to social conventions. Comforting and healthy now may just be discomforting and unhealthy in the near/far future. We can only assess this by remaining open to exploration of ourselves as individuals and as part of AND apart from humanity as a whole.

I’m against the idea, at its core, of a ‘nation of people’ or a ‘state of people’ above the individual human spirit. That is not to say I am against social interaction just its overreaching manifestations - which are clearly present in the modern world at in present conflict with our current freedom to reach around the world with ease (as we are right now on this forum).

‘What we are’ is the bedrock your question lies on though. To explain further, I meant that ‘what is best’ can only be addressed with a fuller understanding of ‘what we are’ - be this as an individual or otherwise. What is more the ‘best’ knowledge we have of the situation of ‘others’ is through ourselves (quite obviously: the ‘obvious,’ ironically, being something easily overlooked!) — I like sushi

What are we then? One of either two things: a solitary individual or a shared experience of being human. If you reduce a life down to its most basic experience, a “right here, right now” moment, then what it comes down to is the moment you interact with another person and how you treat them, at that very moment.

What is more the ‘best’ knowledge we have of the situation of ‘others’ is through ourselves — I like sushi

This may or may not be true. The best knowledge of others cannot be reached in isolation. One can only achieve an understanding of others by listening, by paying attention. That requires a quietening of your ego.

Why would anyone in their right mind presume they know what is better for others? — I like sushi

I’m not presuming to know what is better for others by suggesting that I act in what may contribute the most good for the most people. I’m taking part in the world as an act. The obvious example of that is the situation of taking a vaccine to help eradicate a disease. I have my doubts about vaccines, I’m not sure about taking them as an individual, what it does to my system, and possibly more importantly the growing demands of health authorities and vaccines becoming mandatory. That seems to be an assault against the sovereignty of my body. That’s my perception of myself as an individual. But why? Am I so important? So I consider the overall benefits to the community by accepting the vaccine.

rather than what I arrive at as good through my necessarily painful and hard journey of coming to understand ‘what I am’ — I like sushi

Really, who cares about your journey. How does that really help others? How does it really contribute good to others? It’s action that makes the world a better place. The most good for the most people seems a perfectly rational way to live a life. What else would you chose?

I’m not suggesting that “it’s ‘good’ to, adhere to social standards because ‘that is what people do’. But why would you live a life in conflict with people? Are others that bad that you must protect yourself from them. And if they are that bad then why, because their sense of individuality clashes with yours?

I’m against the idea, at its core, of a ‘nation of people’ or a ‘state of people’ above the individual human spirit. — I like sushi

This is the crux of the question I suppose. There is a state, it exists. As Pantagruel suggested; the community came before the individual. So what is the best way to live in it?

This is the crux of the question I suppose. There is a state, it exists. As Pantagruel suggested; the community came before the individual. So what is the best way to live in it? — Brett

And that is a conflation. State does not equate to community. I was quite clear, as others have been, about the difference between a community of humans and a state/nation. The interests are completely different beasts as the latter are VERY recent occurrences - in terms of human existence.

As for the rest its your choice. If you deem your position better so be it ... that is kind of the point I was getting at. If that suits you after your diverse life experiences so be it - how diverse your experiences have been is your concern relative to what you see as appropriate. In simplistic terms we’re born and then we actively map out a cosmological view of our existence in accordance with what we consider too risky and too safe. I’m saying anything fantastic there am I? It’s just how things are for every living creature. We just happen to be able to extend our concerns beyond the knowledge of our death which doesn’t necessarily mean we’re all here to help humanity cease to exist in 5000 years rather than 500 years.

Note: I view more extreme altruistic views with as much concern as I do nihilistic views - at least the latter is more clearly a danger than the former.

State does not equate to community — I like sushi

This is true. The state is an institution which appeared relatively late in the collective project.

State does not equate to community. I was quite clear, as others have been, about the difference between a community of humans and a state/nation. The interests are completely different beasts as the latter are VERY recent occurrences - in terms of human existence. — I like sushi

I don’t see any difference except in size. And size may very well be the problem. But it’s a fact that can’t be ignored. I think states do equate to communities. A state is a community of humans.

Just to help elucidate where I’m coming from;

A state is a polity under a system of governance.

Polities do not necessarily need to be governments. A corporation, for instance, is capable of marshalling resources, has a governance structure, legal rights and exclusive jurisdiction over internal decision making. An ethnic community within a country or subnational entity may be a polity if they have sufficient organization and cohesive interests that can be furthered by such organization. Wikipedia

I view more extreme altruistic views with as much concern as I do nihilistic views — I like sushi

Why?

don’t see any difference except in size. And size may very well be the problem. But it’s a fact that can’t be ignored. I think states do — Brett

I think there is a significant difference between an organic community (family/clan/tribe) and one that is institutionalized (polity)

I think there is a significant difference between an organic community (family/clan/tribe) and one that is institutionalized (polity) — Pantagruel

Definitions seems to be quite broad and most likely defined on the basis of ideology. Weber called it “ a polity that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence“. Wikipedia mentions that “ There is no undisputed definition of a state“.

Where do you think the difference might lie? It seems to me that all of family/clan/tribes have some form of governance, whether it be priests, chiefs or elders. Not to mention the cultural aspects of all communities.

Whatever the definition, can the state exist, can it be called a state, if it doesn’t include the people and their, possibly unconscious, influential affect as a mass?

If what I’m talking about is not the state then I’m happy to consider another term for what I’m talking about. Because I don’t see the individual as being up against governance only, as if everything the individual comes into conflict with springs from authority.

Why do you think? Take a stab at it as a given and maybe you’ll find something.

Why do you think? Take a stab at it as a given and maybe you’ll find something. — I like sushi

you can’t really expect me to know what you think. Maybe instead of “why” I should have asked what you mean by “extreme altruism”.

If what I’m talking about is not the state then I’m happy to consider another term for what I’m talking about. Because I don’t see the individual as being up against governance only, as if everything the individual comes into conflict with springs from authority — Brett

Yes, I thought you were talking about some kind of social collective basically, and were using the term "state" loosely.

I notice you mention Weber. Have you read any Mead? Because one of the books I'm reading right now seems to go to the heart of this topic. It's called "Mind, Self, and Society" and it is quickly becoming one of my favourites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract