That might be true, but you'll have a hard time convincing those who believe that an individual is necessarily a part of a group. However, the logic is on your side. A "group", as a multiplicity, by definition requires the existence of individuals. But there is nothing within the concept of "individual" which requires that one is the member of a group. In this way, "individual" is logically prior to "group", because "group" is dependent on "individual", while the inverse is not the case.

I don't think this holds from either a logical or a historical perspective.

But there is nothing within the concept of "individual" which requires that one is the member of a group. In this way, "individual" is logically prior to "group", because "group" is dependent on "individual", while the inverse is not the case. — Metaphysician Undercover

While the term "individual" may not logically depend on a specific group, it does depend on the concept of a multitude. You can only be an individual if you can be differentiated from someone else in some way. Without this, nothing would give rise to the notion of individuality.

From a historical perspective, it seems clear that individuation requires contact with other humans, and there has never been a time in human history where humans did not live in some kind of community. In this sense, "communism" is humanities ancestral form, and individualism is a recent invention.

I think that what you are saying is right, but has often being ignored. I found that to be especially true when I was being brought up as a Catholic. As an adolescent I remember someone giving me advice that I should, 'lose myself in order to find myself' and he was trying to tell me that I should ignore my own wishes etc.

Also, many Christians speak of loving one neighbour as the most significant thing, but actually that is ignoring the whole part 'as yourself', because if you cannot love yourself how can you begin to love others. The attempt to love others, without understanding one's own needs, leads to shallow do-gooders.

Of course, the whole problem is much more complicated now, because many people have gone from the principle of caring for others to the complete disregard of others outside their immediate circle. We have moved in ways to an age of individualism, a fragmented society of lost connections and many becoming isolated.

Perhaps the only way to address the balance would be if people realised that we have to understand and attain our own needs as a starting point. It may have got to the point where we need to get back to the real basics of living and denial of the self would be the worst possibility and a whole means of blindness.

While the term "individual" may not logically depend on a specific group, it does depend on the concept of a multitude. You can only be an individual if you can be differentiated from someone else in some way. Without this, nothing would give rise to the notion of individuality. — Echarmion

This is not true. "Individual" is defined by unity, not by being differentiated from its environment. That's why the universe, which is supposed to be a unity of everything, is an individual without the need of being differentiated from anything else.

So you appear to be confusing "individuation" which is an act that distinguishes an individual from its environment, with the definition of "individual" which is based in the concept of unity rather than an act of individuation.

While the term "individual" may not logically depend on a specific group, it does depend on the concept of a multitude. You can only be an individual if you can be differentiated from someone else in some way. Without this, nothing would give rise to the notion of individuality. — Echarmion

This is accurate with regards to the concept of individuality, as without a group there is nothing to contrast with, ergo no differentiation can occur. However, a group is not required for the determination of the self.

I believe that the individual is the fundamental threat to the group, despite being inherently required for the group, hence the insistence by the group to subjugate the individual. "The good of the many outweigh the good of the one", "the greater good", etc. With the determination of the self, as an independent entity and unattached to the group, comes the threat that said determination may spread throughout the group, reducing the engagement in the group and weakening the group. If this occurs frequently enough, the group, as a single entity, will die. Other, smaller groups may result, Likeminded selves congregating together, or isolated individuals will exist in a solitary manner. Regardless, the initial group is no more.

If an individual is one step ahead of the group they are a leader. Two steps; a Visionary. Four steps: a threat to be destroyed.

This is not true. "Individual" is defined by unity, not by being differentiated from its environment. That's why the universe, which is supposed to be a unity of everything, is an individual without the need of being differentiated from anything else. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not how people use the word individual. Being individual means discrete, e.g. seperated, distinct and differentiated. Unity can be more things united as a whole. So several individuals can form unity.

Take the universe as an example of an individual is a bit ridiculous really because quite clearly it contains individuals.

This is not true. "Individual" is defined by unity, not by being differentiated from its environment. — Metaphysician Undercover

According to whom though? We haven't really settled on any definition, and I was assuming we go by the common meaning.

Where do the italicized quotations come from and why does anyone take them for granted as common belief?

If a mindless insentient group (collection of organisms) can exist prior to the development self-reflection and counting its constituents (selves) by some language then isn't that a case where a group exists prior to the concept of the self?

Or are we talking purely about the hypothetical sequential emergence of these concepts? Why not simultaneous emergence of self (1) aside other (2)?

Surely it helps to have multiples of a kind in order to say that at any time there is only 1 of a kind out of other possibilities (2, 3, 4..). There is one what? One what? There is two what? Two what?

Cue the mirror!

While the term "individual" may not logically depend on a specific group, it does depend on the concept of a multitude. You can only be an individual if you can be differentiated from someone else in some way. Without this, nothing would give rise to the notion of individuality. — Echarmion

"Individual" is not synonymous with "Individuality". It is easy to confuse the metaphysical perceptions of "One in existence" and "Being one in existence"

From a historical perspective, it seems clear that individuation requires contact with other humans, and there has never been a time in human history where humans did not live in some kind of community. In this sense, "communism" is humanities ancestral form, and individualism is a recent invention. — Echarmion

It is very likely that your perception of what a perfect world would be is seriously affecting your perception of reality. Human nature was never "group mentality" "but "egoistic". Man exists to fulfill himself individually, not to fulfill the will of the community, in fact, it is the individual's own action to be fulfilled that consequently creates the community...

I've been giving this idea of the all vs the individual some thought and since you've given it a mathematical flavor, I'll just continue along the same trajectory.

You've talked about "...the primordial unit, the one..." and it resonates with my thoughts - how exactly did the all/the many come to be? By way of an answer in concordance with the OP's thesis, I suggest contextualizing the matter within reproduction. A human body is a community of cells that has been accorded the status of a unit, a one, an individual but that's not the end of the story for this community of cells also began as a unit, a one, the zygote - the "...primordial unit..." - formed when sperm and egg fuse. It's as if the all/the many is an illusion and science has, by digging up the hidden unity, on multiple occasions, dispelled this illusion. :chin:

This is a puzzle I've been grappling with for the past week or so. A single cell divides but the net effect is multiplication into a population of cells and when you divide this population, you get back to a single cell. The one divides into the many and the many divides into the one.

"Individual" is not synonymous with "Individuality". It is easy to confuse the metaphysical perceptions of "One in existence" and "Being one in existence" — Gus Lamarch

It is unless we're operating on a specific definition, in which case this should be set out in the beginning.

It is very likely that your perception of what a perfect world would be is seriously affecting your perception of reality. Human nature was never "group mentality" "but "egoistic". Man exists to fulfill himself individually, not to fulfill the will of the community, in fact, it is the individual's own action to be fulfilled that consequently creates the community... — Gus Lamarch

Do you have anything specific you can point to here? In anthropology, it's not in doubt that our particular line of ancestors had been social, group animals long before anatomically modern humans were around. And what we know of band-level societies - i.e. the lowest level of organisation - shows that mutual support is the norm. Of course using the term "communism" for this kind of mutual support is provocative, and it's different from the 20th century political project of communism. But it's also a far cry from egoism.

Do you have anything specific you can point to here? — Echarmion

band-level societies — Echarmion

The "group" exists only to benefit the individual and its goals. For what reason do you believe that irrational animals - and rational, as in the case of humanity - come together in groups? This "alliance" - commonly referred by us, as community, civilization, etc ... - is simply a consequence of the perception that individuals seek self-realization. Obviously if some people with the same purpose meet, they would probably create some kind of relationship, as this will make it easier for them to reach their individual goals. The fact is, the group only comes to exist - as in the form of the concept - if, and only if, the individual wants it to exist.

Where do the italicized quotations come from — Nils Loc

My egoism.

The "group" exists only to benefit the individual and its goals. For what reason do you believe that irrational animals - and rational, as in the case of humanity - come together in groups? This "alliance" - commonly referred by us, as community, civilization, etc ... - is simply a consequence of the perception that individuals seek self-realization. Obviously if some people with the same purpose meet, they would probably create some kind of relationship, as this will make it easier for them to reach their individual goals. The fact is, the group only comes to exist - as in the form of the concept - if, and only if, the individual wants it to exist. — Gus Lamarch

This implies that humans start as individuals and then "come together in groups". But that is not what historically happens. Humans always already start out as part of a group, and the rare exceptions where this isn't the case will not have "normal" cognition.

So what you're describing can only be a thought experiment, where we imagine humans somehow enter a world as fully formed individuals yet they're not already in some kind of relation to each other. But even then I don't see the justification for reducing all human goals down to egoism. You're basically claiming you can rephrase all human intentions as some form of egoism, but that is merely a semantical game, not a profound insight.

This implies that humans start as individuals and then "come together in groups". But that is not what historically happens. Humans always already start out as part of a group, and the rare exceptions where this isn't the case will not have "normal" cognition. — Echarmion

I don't know you, but when I was conceived, I was only me, not a group of any kind.

I don't know you, but when I was conceived, I was only me, not a group of any kind. — Gus Lamarch

when you were conveived, you were your mother.

when you were conveived, you were your mother. — Echarmion

Yet, even another proof that I was an individual even though it was no the Self I call as I.

I do not follow.

While generally I do think that you make some very good arguments, I think that you do have to ask what you consider to be the 'self'.

Also, you have to remember that even the term ego can be interpreted in different ways. I use the word a lot but I am mainly influenced by the psychoanalytic writers, including Freud. I imagine that your thinking is not from this perspective at all, but I am wondering how do you define the ego?

That's not how people use the word individual. Being individual means discrete, e.g. seperated, distinct and differentiated. Unity can be more things united as a whole. So several individuals can form unity. — Benkei

When you list what "individual" means, discrete, separated, distinct, and differentiated, why do you intentionally exclude "unity" and "whole" from this? Is an individual not necessarily a unity? How could an individual be other than a whole? I suggest you are just making this distinction in an attempt to support an untenable position.

Sure, several individuals might be united, but that does nothing to diminish the claim that one individual is a more fundamental unity than a group of several individuals, which as a group might also be referred to as an individual unity. Likewise 1 represents a more fundamental unity than 3 does, because 3 is dependent on 1 for its meaning, but 1 is not dependent on 3 for its meaning.

Take the universe as an example of an individual is a bit ridiculous really because quite clearly it contains individuals. — Benkei

You have no argument there. There is nothing about the concept of "individual" which denies an individual from being composed of parts, which are themselves individuals. Any group, is itself an individual, by the fact that it exists as a group. The point though, is that the individuals which make up the group are necessarily prior to the group. The group, as an individual, has no existence until there is a multitude of individuals which make up the group. So the group cannot be prior to the individuals which make up the group. However, there might be first, just one individual, then there'd be an individual but no group.

I was assuming we go by the common meaning. — Echarmion

So was I. An individual is a single, a single is one, and one is a fundamental unity. The common meaning of "individual" is a fundamental unity. You might say that an "individual" is a person. But isn't this exactly what a person is, a fundamental unity?

"the group must always come before the Self" — Gus Lamarch

"Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno"
(one for all, and all for one)

You care about yourself, right? Wish to survive, live, and thrive? Others wish to do the same. Tell me, exactly how much land, resources, and people do you think you could protect on your own? How much can the larger group protect? So, by protecting the larger group and being selfless, you protect yourself and your own freedom to be selfish. Ironic, I suppose.

"So that 2, 3, 4, 5... may come into being as concepts, the 1 must have been conceived beforehand."

Therefore, the idea that the individual only emerges after the community is nothing more than demagogy or doublethink of those who, having conceived their individuals - their Self - need others to share their freedoms as Beings in order to exacerbate the individual from the conscious one. — Gus Lamarch

I note that you appeal to us using arithmetic and logic, our shared cultural heritage. I note also that you appeal to us at all, in the first place, for the recognition of some kind of trans-individual validity of your thought.

We are born mute and helpless. Older humans keep us alive and teach us a shared language, keeping their own bodies alive by participating in a community.

Human society - and not just contemporary society - always seems to have sought - and often forced - the homogeneity of the thought that "the group must always come before the Self" and to implement it in civilization. — Gus Lamarch

Of course certain roles are imposed on the members of a community. Certain actions are forbidden while others are demanded. In societies that tolerate and even encourage individuality, we can realize that any particular set of rules/customs is just the way 'we' happen to do things. But learning to do that is one of the roles that's imposed on us these days.

'Look at me: I'm freer than you, more intense than you. Feel free to recognize and imitate my virtue. Perhaps write a book about me to survive me when this flesh fails.'

Human society - and not just contemporary society - always seems to have sought - and often forced - the homogeneity of the thought that "the group must always come before the Self" and to implement it in civilization. — Gus Lamarch

I assumed on first reading this sentence you were referring to the idea that we should prioritise the many over the few: the only meaning of "the group must always come before the Self" I've ever heard. However, you take this to mean "the origins of the group precede that of the Self". Can you cite any references for this?

The only sense I can make of that is that the Self is singular and specific: there is no Self not born into a pre-existing group. Humans are biologically inclined to group behaviour, which could not be true without the concept of a group. Remove that group-dependence, and you're not talking about a person any more.

I am not sure about your idea that being part of a group is central to being a person, or to what extent. Perhaps I am a little bit on the autistic spectrum but I have found that having to spend too much time with others is so stressful.

I am constantly seeking out corners where I can be by myself, free from the demands and constraints of others. I think that we need to have more scope to be individuals, rather than being constrained to fit into groups. I don't mind social distancing, with my reading and writing, as long as I can go into somewhere indoors to do this. Of course, I am reading books written by others and I do communicate with others, so I am not an 'island', but if I can't get any time alone I feel like I am going crazy.

I just hate being part of the herd.

Man exists to fulfill himself individually, not to fulfill the will of the community, in fact, it is the individual's own action to be fulfilled that consequently creates the community... — Gus Lamarch

I don’t know about that. It’s the community that creates the environment that enables a person to pursue ideas of individuality. Before the community, or tribe, he was an animal trying to survive from one day to the next. Survival was his intent not his perception of himself as anything.

My apologies if this has already been mentioned.

[ Trying to eraze my comments as I feel I answered a bit impulsively but cannot find a function in the edit mode to do so]

[same here]

I am not sure about your idea that being part of a group is central to being a person, or to what extent. Perhaps I am a little bit on the autistic spectrum but I have found that having to spend too much time with others is so stressful. — Jack Cummins

For all I know you're also sterile... it's still true that humans reproduce sexually :)

Humans have a natural capacity for empathy. This capacity can be suppressed, not just in a permanent way but circumstantially. For instance, most people have anti-empathetic responses to out-group members. This capacity is very much tied to our drive toward altruistic behaviour. We have this feature for a reason: living in small social groups is better for us on the whole.

Few of us live in small social groups now. Partly because of higher mobility and population density, partly because the reigning sociopolitical memes are isolationist and individualist, a huge number of us would, like yourself, prefer to keep our neighbours at arms length (not a Covid reference). Our way of living makes mutual reciprocity as a default social behaviour neither generally possible or particularly attractive. Nonetheless we carry that part of ourselves with us. It manifests itself in most of our religions, our storytelling and our moral beliefs which ever tends toward inclusivity, pacifism, compassion and egalitarianism. We are born both selfish and selfless, with exceptions.

But I wouldn't interpret that as the group coming before the individual. Our social nature is part of our individual nature (since those biological capacities were selected to benefit the individual) and, while you can have individuals without groups, you may not have groups without individuals.

As far as I am aware, I am not sterile or lacking in empathy. I am not suggesting that we, as individuals, should be totally detached from others, without needs for friendship, but sometimes it does seem as if the whole emphasis on group supremacy seems to rule. For example, I have gone into a pub, with a book, wishing to be left alone , just to be given space to read and, despite the social distancing rules, I have been told to move, to make way for groups.

I am not wishing to spend my life entirely alone, and wish to converse with others for discussion, and even sex, but think that there is a danger that the individual quest is seen as irrelevant in the spectrum of consideration of groups as being of supreme importance.

I am not dismissing the need for some kinds of social bonding, but, at the same time, individual lives and quests should not be dismissed, under the guise of group majority. We are not mere parts of groups, but individuals, with our own mythic journeys, which should not be seen as secondary to the group mind. Perhaps the individuals who stand outside, as the creative outsiders, may be the ones who usher in and bring forth the most creative possibilities.

Humans have a natural capacity for empathy. — Kenosha Kid

This is a good point, but I think the issue of the op is whether this natural capacity for empathy is caused by group existence, or is the cause of group existence. It appears like the latter is what is the case.

But I wouldn't interpret that as the group coming before the individual. Our social nature is part of our individual nature (since those biological capacities were selected to benefit the individual) and, while you can have individuals without groups, you may not have groups without individuals. — Kenosha Kid

At this point you seem to concur, that the existence of the group is caused by the existence of the individuals. But if this is the case, that the capacity, or propensity for empathy is prior to the group which it produces, it creates a perplexity. Why are individual living beings naturally endowed with a propensity toward creating groups?