Among Extraneous

Gus Lamarch

- The year was 457 AD, the Roman Empire, not anymore on its throne of gold and ivory, but on one of iron and rust. There in the heart of corruption and promiscuity, sanctified by the word of false christians, was a flame in the midst of total and anguishing darkness. Flavius Julius Valerius Majorianus - usually known as “Majorian” in the academic world - ascended to the Roman throne. His empire was brief - 457 AD - 461 AD - but as enlightened as his person. In the midst of all the evil eyes, he tried - to no avail - to bring back the roman civilization to its glorious and purposeful past.
As the 18th century english historian Edward Gibbon had already said:

"Majorian presents the welcome discovery of a great and heroic character, as they sometimes appear, in a degenerate era, to claim the honor of the human species".

Its not through mere "opinion" that Edward writes these words, Majorian, however short his empire was, brought victories - as in 458 AD, where he regained the province of "Gallia" and "Hispania" with the victory against the barbarian visigoths in the " Battle of Arelate”, or when he defeated the burgundians in Lugdunum, making them kneel again - and for the last time - to the roman state - and prestige to all; in addition, he tried to bring the individual freedoms back to the population - as in the case of the Novella Maioriani 8, De reddito iure armorum, “The return of the right to bear arms” - however, it was not enough for the roman population, already corrupted to the extreme by the rot of the church, ignorance, and doublethink.

I wonder how Majorian felt just before he was executed by Ricimer - a romanized germanic barbarian that was "Magister Militum" - Master of the Soldiers - of the Western Roman Empire -, his traitor and as corrupted as his entire society at the time. Maybe he felt weak, maybe a hero lost in an age of the sick. I'll never know. What brings me comfort is the fact that even in the midst of the most stormy and distant storm, I could still find people who are strong enough to accept their egoism - their individual oughtness -, even averse to all of their contemporaneity, and that, in the end, could leave the flame of the ego still alive.

My question with all this contextualizing text is:

- Even in an environment completely - and here I strengthen the statement, completely - averse to the individual, his will to exist for himself and not for others, and his egoistic purpose; can there be individual truths? Individual opinions? Can the individual remain an individual?

DingoJones

↪Gus Lamarch

Of course, in so much as an environment is able to be opposed/ignored by each individual within it.
Im not sure where the conundrum lies here...if the individual subscribes to a social environment, they subscribe to the level of individuality permitted by that social environment, if any. If they do not subscribe then they have no restrictions on being an individual. If the person subscribes but doesnt always follow the rules, then they have individuality proportionate to the degree to which they go against or ignore the environment. Finally, if they subscribe to the social environment but privately (mentally or otherwise) exercise individuality then they are able to be individuals to whatever extent they are able to have privacy (of thought or otherwise).

Gus Lamarch

Of course, in so much as an environment is able to be opposed/ignored by each individual within it.
Im not sure where the conundrum lies here...if the individual subscribes to a social environment, they subscribe to the level of individuality permitted by that social environment, if any. If they do not subscribe then they have no restrictions on being an individual. If the person subscribes but doesnt always follow the rules, then they have individuality proportionate to the degree to which they go against or ignore the environment. Finally, if they subscribe to the social environment but privately (mentally or otherwise) exercise individuality then they are able to be individuals to whatever extent they are able to have privacy (of thought or otherwise). — DingoJones

It seems to me that when an absolute truth is created and strengthened by a belief - whether religious or not - the individual completely loses his ability to exercise himself in a given society. Ex: Majorian tried again to prescribe the possession of weapons to the roman population, however, since they were already accommodated with the situation in which they lived, they did not see the value that this feat would have on their lives, and so it was prohibited.

An individual - Majorian - with power to change society tried to bring back the importance of individual freedom, but people - as being now part of a large crowd, without the knowledge of individual freedom - impossibilitated this process.

DingoJones

↪Gus Lamarch

Well thats an example of someone trying to get others to express individuality, not Majorians self expression of individuality. You asked whether or not someone can be an individual in that specific society, not whether an individual can change that society. In the latter, its more a question about how a populace changes or doesnt change regardless of the environment, where as in the former its the reverse: can the individual resist the environment?
So I think you are juggling two questions here. I Believe what I said initially about individuality stands, but to the second question about a populace/society changing their absolute beliefs I think its much more complex. Psychology, habit, adversity, the power/influence of the would be changer, desperation or prosperity of the populace, the structure or content of the absolute belief...there are so many factors Im not sure it can be reduced to a single, widely applicable answer. Its going to depend on the details, the specific instance.

Gus Lamarch

You asked whether or not someone can be an individual in that specific society, not whether an individual can change that society. — DingoJones

Its that the concept of individuality doesn't make sense - to me - when applied to a completely hegemonic population, without religious, cultural or social differences. It seems to me that the individual "dies" when an absolute truth has been completely reached and everyone believes in it.

can the individual resist the environment? — DingoJones

The individual's existence is already an eternal battle against the external environment. I don't see a "truce" being made between the individual and the collective.

DingoJones

Its that the concept of individuality doesn't make sense - to me - when applied to a completely hegemonic population, without religious, cultural or social differences. It seems to me that the individual "dies" when an absolute truth has been completely reached and everyone believes in it. — Gus Lamarch

I think by definition the individual “dies” in this complete hegemony, but only because you defined it so. Am I misunderstanding? It seems like you are essentially asking “if there was an environment with no individuality would there be any individuality?”.

DingoJones

The individual's existence is already an eternal battle against the external environment. I don't see a "truce" being made between the individual and the collective. — Gus Lamarch

I think I can agree with that.

Gus Lamarch

Am I misunderstanding? — DingoJones

No you're not.

It seems like you are essentially asking “if there was an environment with no individuality would there be any individuality?” — DingoJones

Yes, it was a better phrasing. "If the individual dies, and his concept becomes completely forgotten; can there still be human "individuality"?

DingoJones

↪Gus Lamarch

I would say yes to that. Until it evolves out of us humans will always express individuality, in fact id go so far as to say that its only the conformity to society that weakens this natural instinct of individuality. I think it does that on a scale/spectrum. Certain societies will be better or worse for the sense of individuality.

Gus Lamarch

in fact id go so far as to say that its only the conformity to society that weakens this natural instinct of individuality. — DingoJones

And where nihilism would apply here? Nihilism would cause the conformity to society or the other way around?

DingoJones

↪Gus Lamarch

I dont know that it would factor in per say. It may or may not, the society good be nihilistic, or the individual not nihilistic. All depends on each specific instance, thats why I mentioned that before. Its too complex to make general statements or conclusions.

Gus Lamarch

I dont know that it would factor in per say. — DingoJones

I believe that nihilism is one of the causes for the eventual demise of individualism. When we enter a moral, ethical and cultural state of relaxation, concepts - which, have since then, become banal - like freedom, are not as valued as before, because now everyone has it - everyone is free -. Nihilism will gradually erode the structure of society, and with that, bring the concept of collectivism - That if I must do something, we will do it, because it will be faster and easier. In short, less concern for individual well-being and a certain voluntary degradation of the self in exchange for the status quo that maintains the society which they live in -.

Among Extraneous

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories