it is fallacious of me to dismiss the anti-individualist argument because of the company they keep — NOS4A2

One of the very very few times that we agree. :love:

That’s easy to do when you can remove much of my sentence. Contextomy is also a fallacy.

So you can't decide if it's fallacious or not? Trust me, it is.

I clearly said it was fallacious. I’m not sure why you’d raise that question.

Rather than try to explain why don't you simply say how the quote doesn't stand alone or how its meaning is distorted in isolation.

If it stands alone why didn’t you just leave it as is? Instead, much of the sentence is missing.

Because no one cares for your pity or melodramatic prose.

That's a bit like saying wetness is forced upon water. It is true that every individual finds themselves embedded in relations which they are not able to easily change or abrogate. But so do they find themselves subject to the laws of physics. Do we level a charge at the laws of physics for their tyrannical nature? — Echarmion

People are conscious, moral agents; the laws of physics are not. That is a fundamental difference to me.

We can change the type and makeup of the social conditions "forced upon" the individual. But we cannot simply wish them away, because individuals cannot exist outside these conditions. — Echarmion

My point is not that all possible changes should be made to "right the wrong". However, the realization that the individual does not necessarily participate in society voluntarily is an important factor in why I believe states/societies/collectives cannot claim to hold moral authority over individuals (at least not by default).

That doesn’t make sense because an autocrat can be a responsible autocrat that acts cooperatively with society for the benefit of all, or more likely act irresponsibly and take advantage of their position for personal gain, perhaps even going so far as to deliberately impoverish the citizenry to better secure their autocracy.

To me it seems that the basic whole point, as you say, is that the individualist wants to compete and the collectivist wants to cooperate. Some think that competition is the natural way and others think that, because we have the capacity of reason, there may be a better way. — praxis

That's strange that you don't see the autocrat as someone that competed to get to the top of society. Individualism doesn't necessarily include the idea of competition. Individuals are free to work with others if they so choose, and can often accomplish a great deal in groups, but at the end of they day they are all still individuals that retain their own thoughts and the freedom to choose to participate in a group or not. Sports teams are groups that also compete against other groups, so I don't why you would think that competition is soley the characteristic of individualists.

Collectivists seem intent on limiting individual thought and imposing the thought of one individual on the rest. I think of an ant colony, or Star Trek's Borg when I think of collectivism, and both of those compete with other species for resources on Earth or in the galaxy.

Of course I agree.

In my mind the collectivist rhetoric only serves to disguise the authoritarian impulse. What’s feigned to be done for the whole is always done for one portion of it at the expense of another. That the anti-individualist creed is a veritable rogue’s gallery of tinpot dictators and authoritarians from all brands of ideologies makes this evident. Even though it is fallacious of me to dismiss the anti-individualist argument because of the company they keep, I no less pity them for having to stand on the sunken shoulders of these types of giants. — NOS4A2

I couldn't agree more. After all, who's ideas is the collective promoting? If you have to push your ideas onto another individual, then you're not allowing the individual to think for themselves. Another individual must make the effort to show another how their ideas are good for others and not just for themselves. Most of the collectivists don't seem to care about making that case. They just want you to submit to their will.

That's strange that you don't see the autocrat as someone that competed to get to the top of society. — Harry Hindu

In my hypothetical society autocrats are appointed by lottery. Kinda rando but eminently egalitarian.

Individuals are free to work with others if they so choose — Harry Hindu

If they live in society they really have no choice but to be mostly cooperative.

I don't why you would think that competition is soley the characteristic of individualists. — Harry Hindu

Not sure how saying that someone may want to behave in a particular way means that they can only behave in that way.

Collectivists seem intent on limiting individual thought and imposing the thought of one individual on the rest. — Harry Hindu

Cooperation does require compatible values and goals, no getting around that. I imagine the same holds true for individualists who cooperate with each other.

In my hypothetical society autocrats are appointed by lottery. Kinda rando but eminently egalitarian. — praxis

Why by lottery and not by free elections? Who created and is administering this lottery?

If they live in society they really have no choice but to be mostly cooperative. — praxis

Tell that to the people who resist an run from police because they've been told society and its enforcers are racists.

Tell that to the growing number of no-political-party-affiliation voters.

Not sure how saying that someone may want to behave in a particular way means they can only behave in that way. — praxis

You're the one that used a single word to describe individualists, as if the two terms were essentially conflated, when you only need to take a second to see how that is just as much a property of collectives as it is individuals.

Cooperation does require compatible values and goals, no getting around that. I imagine the same holds true for individualists who cooperate with each other. — praxis

Exactly. So at this point we seem to be saying the same thing.

Why by lottery and not by free elections? — Harry Hindu

They are free, and in fact every eligible citizen receives a free sticker just for participating. Why lottery? In attempt to remove the incentive for power seeking. There’s no point of investing in power seeking if power is randomly given.

You're the one that used a single word to describe individualists, as if the two terms were essentially conflated, when you only need to take a second to see how that is just as much a property of collectives as it is individuals. — Harry Hindu

I tried to describe the difference as succinctly as possible. You apparently disagree, offering the rationale that everyone both competes and cooperates.

Maybe it has to do with competition vs cooperation as it relates specifically to power distribution in society. The individualist wants to win the game and the collectivist wants to play the game indefinitely and where ‘everyone’s a winner!’, essentially. In real life this plays out as collectivists supporting collective power, such as workers unions, and individualists supporting capital free enterprise and its concentrations of power.

There is no problem at all. It's the only real functional solution. The problem is that people can't understand the function of individualism!! As most things they confuse the real understanding of what it should be. They just connect it like most things with Matter! Right use of individualism is the only realistic way of changing things for better terms of happiness to human societies

One can’t deny thrust of anti-individualist arguments, for instance against avarice, but they fit better as arguments against human nature rather than any individualist belief. Collectivists too are guilty of the same sins.

The only logical solution for a human is to persuade his happiness. That's totally individual process. Working with yourself is the essence for me in individualism. But it's difficult for people to understand what happiness means and so on what individualism means. Plus its a tough soul fighting process. A battle that not many can stand. The fight with yourself is the toughest one. So that's why though I believe that indeed is the only solution I have still doubts if it's actually possible to happen. Well thats my view at least

Just thinking out loud here, but reading this thread, and thinking about individualism, it strikes me as, somehow, inherently masculine. When I think of women reading and thinking about this, I envision a lot of eye-rolling. :roll:

What, today, or in the 18th century? :)

I don't think there's any problem with it--I'm an individual. 'Individualism', taken broadly, means I can do what I wish. Is it good for a state? Maybe not. But what's good for a state may not be good for me, and I won't survive the state. And even nurtured to perfection through controlled 'collectivism' it would still collapse. :grin: Then there's the question whether a state's good at all. Hard to say, thousands of years after they were made. Why did we make states? In any case I think an individual, someone that's truly one, that advocates collectivism is just shooting himself in the foot. Look at communist China or Russia. So it's come back to whether a state's good in the first place, i.e. someone ruling you. If that's going to be the case, individualism to me is just a minimization of his control, or we might say 'checks and balances'. I'm sure collectivism is better for the whole, in many not immediately defineable ways, but in any state there need to be people that rule over someone, and these people at least, or someone, is empowered to individualism--the ruler--and if his individualism isn't like yours, well you may wind up with your head on a pike. So, what's best for me, is best for me, basically. :smile:

They are free, and in fact every eligible citizen receives a free sticker just for participating. Why lottery? In attempt to remove the incentive for power seeking. There’s no point of investing in power seeking if power is randomly given. — praxis

I can understand the benefits of a lottery system as a means of dispersing power and the limiting the incentive for seeking it, but we have to know who created the lottery system and administers it so that it can't be manipulated to a particular group's or individual's benefit.

I tried to describe the difference as succinctly as possible. You apparently disagree, offering the rationale that everyone both competes and cooperates.

Maybe it has to do with competition vs cooperation as it relates specifically to power distribution in society. The individualist wants to win the game and the collectivist wants to play the game indefinitely and where ‘everyone’s a winner!’, essentially. In real life this plays out as collectivists supporting collective power, such as workers unions, and individualists supporting capital free enterprise and its concentrations of power. — praxis

I already showed how groups compete against other groups. It seems to me that you are implying that there should be only one group and no competition, which is no different than everyone thinking the same way and the existence of only one party with no dissent or competing ideas. Just think about your argument and how that might equate to one race, country, religion, etc. eliminating all competition from other groups. Isn't that what we saw in Germany in the mid 20th century? Diversity of groups is just as important as a diversity of individuals.

Just thinking out loud here, but reading this thread, and thinking about individualism, it strikes me as, somehow, inherently masculine. When I think of women reading and thinking about this, I envision a lot of eye-rolling. :roll: — James Riley

Sexist. :roll:

Sexist. :roll: — Harry Hindu

Me, or individualism, or both?

It seems to me that you are implying that there should be only one group and no competition — Harry Hindu

Actually if there's any implication along this line it's that the Individualist wants to desimate the competition in order to secure their position of power.

I think the first to second wave of feminism was inherently individualist. It's hard to roll your eyes reading the abolitionist and woman's rights champions like Sojourner Truth, Angelina Grimke, or the anarchism of Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre.

Actually if there's any implication along this line it's that the Individualist want to desimate the competition in order to secure their position of power. — praxis

As pointed out, individualism includes recognizing the rights of other individuals and not just one's own. If one is consistent in their beliefs, an individualist actually would shy away from positions of power over others.

I think the first to second wave of feminism was inherently individualist. It's hard to roll your eyes reading the abolitionist and woman's rights champions like Sojourner Truth, Angelina Grimke, or the anarchism of Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre. — NOS4A2

I've never read any of them so I'll have to defer to you on that.

Feminism is a movement and movements, while made up of individuals, requires communal effort for any traction. I don't see women as being adverse to that.

Personally, I can't think of anything more individualist than the concept of pro-choice (I'm happy to ignore those who say "What about the baby's choice?"). But from my own personal life experience, most women I know have a much more realistic understanding of, and comfort with the individual's place in the order of things, than do men. That place is grateful for and accepting of reliance upon the group. The whole "it takes a village" idea tracks well with my understand of a female orientation. And that orientation is not so "individualist" in my understanding of the "don't tread on me" attitude of those who don't want anyone meddling with them.

I'm not saying there isn't a female out there branded as "individualist", but I don't often see them flying the flag. I think that, all in all, they have a more balanced approach to the idea of individualism and that which individualism would abhor. I don't have a good grasp on the latter, because every time you try to pin a self-identified individualist down, they slime around with some excuse as to why they avail themselves of the benefits of an intrusive government. The point is, women don't seem as "either/or" to me. If there was an either/or, I think they'd come down on the side of the non-individualist, like most reasonable people.

That's just my anecdotal take on it.

As ↪Harry Hindu pointed out, individualism includes recognizing the rights of other individuals and not just one's own. If one is consistent in their beliefs, an individualist actually would shy away from positions of power over others. — Tzeentch

I don't see how that follows. On an equal playing field (equal rights and opportunity) one individual can compete better, or just be luckier, than others and 'win'. Having won, the playing field would be less equal and the winner would enjoy an advantage. The rules would be the same but the winning individual would have superior resources at their disposal. They would have more power.

Another thought on feminism: The forces against which feminism seems to be struggling are perceived by me as individualist males who don't extend the individualist notion to include women. Women are chattel. As I understand it, most forms of government that the individualist hates are actually more egalitarian when it comes to the sexes.

You claimed that individualism seeks to secure power over others. This is not the case, as individualism recognizes such things as every individual's right to self-determination.

What you're doing is trying to blame individualism for negative human traits like greed and will to power, which is exactly the type of mischaracterization that Harry Hindu pointed out earlier. You're framing individualism as a form of egotism, which it is not.

The forces against which feminism seems to be struggling are perceived by me as individualist males who don't extend the individualist notion to include women. — James Riley

Case and point.

You're missing out. They were right, brave, and decent. Perhaps give them a read and it might dispel your assumptions. Back in those times they were fighting for the right to vote, against slavery, against arbitrary power, against sexist laws—you know, against the state and other forms of mob rule. Who knows? Without their voices you might be a little more reserved in your support for government.

Case and point. — Tzeentch

I guess those who champion individualism need to pin it down. Every time anyone else tries, it's like nailing Jell-O to the wall. If it's simply "every individuals right to self-determination", then where does one individuals right to self-determination end and another's begin; and who is going to referee conflict between the two?