But a group isn't literally united. Its a sort of poetic expression. Unless you believe in some metaphysical connection that actually somehow forms a single unit out of many. That could be possible, as weird as it sounds, since we are made up of distinct parts that together form a unity.

"One" is a concept, so in the fields of metaphysics, it can be:

(1) Weakness;
(2) Strength;
(3) Weakness and Strength.

Only after "becoming" through the human conception unto the world that it decides what the option will be.

Existence is "limitation".

Your paradox arises from the fact that you are applying the metaphysical perception to something that, in practice, can only be "One".

Does this mean that I, being weak and strong, are one?

Does this mean that I, being weak and strong, are one? — ArisTootelEs

In Ideality? Yes

In Reality? No

Paradoxes can only occur in the metaphysical environment, because, when a concept becomes real, the options cancel each other out and conclude in just one.

A "paradoxical problem" only occurs when trying to apply ideas in the physical environment without the limiting projection of existence.

It is no accident that "theories" - ideal - never work as they should "in practice" - real -.

Are you saying paradoxes only appear if we use different worlds? Like the ideal vs. the real?

Are you saying paradoxes only appear if we use different worlds? Like the ideal vs. the real? — ArisTootelEs

Yes.

For such misunderstandings only occur when "metaphysical" assumptions are applied to "physical" scenarios.

But a group isn't literally united. Its a sort of poetic expression. Unless you believe in some metaphysical connection that actually somehow forms a single unit out of many. That could be possible, as weird as it sounds, since we are made up of distinct parts that together form a unity. — Yohan

I'm simply relating the fact that a group of individuals united by a common purpose/goal can be and is treated as one entity. For example, in politics, something you should be familiar with, we refer to capitalists, socialists, fascists, and so on and in religion, we have christians, buddhists, moslems, jews, etc.. These are not single individuals but entire classes/categories of people. As individuals (one) they don't stand a chance against their adversaries, if any, but together, as a group (one) they're a force to reckon with.

Metaphysically speaking, the matter is slightly complicated. Are groups/classes/categories, united as they are, the same, metaphysically, as the individuals that comprise them? Is the demographic christians identical in every respect to a christian? They seem to behave like each other.

"One" is a concept, so in the fields of metaphysics, it can be:

(1) Weakness;
(2) Strength;
(3) Weakness and Strength.

Only after "becoming" through the human conception unto the world that it decides what the option will be.

Existence is "limitation".

Your paradox arises from the fact that you are applying the metaphysical perception to something that, in practice, can only be "One". — Gus Lamarch

Csn you explain a bit more. Thanks for your comment.

Is a christian (one person) the same as christians (one group). Obviously there are differences but do the similarities compensate enough to make these two kinds of oneness indistinguishable?

One individual is insecure, vulnerable, weak. A population of individuals pursuing one goal is more secure, less vulnerable, strong. Like almost all of your paradoxs, Fool, the premises draw false comparisons between apples and oranges (i.e. often category mistakes e.g. individuals & group-concepts). Again, no paradox. :roll:

One individual is insecure, vulnerable, weak. A population of individuals pursuing one goal is more secular, less vulnerable, strong. Like almost all of your paradoxs, Fool, the premises draw false comparisons between apples and oranges (i.e. often category mistakes e.g. individuals & group-concepts). Again, no paradox. :roll: — 180 Proof

So, you do agree to the gist of the OP. See :point: The Old Man And His Sons

An old man has a number of sons who constantly quarrel with each other. As he nears death he calls them to him and gives them an object lesson in the need for unity. Having bound a bundle of sticks together (or in other accounts either spears or arrows), he asks his sons to break them. When they fail, he undoes the bundle and either breaks each stick singly [ONE] or gets his sons to do so. In the same way, he teaches them, though each can be overcome alone, they are invincible combined [ONE] — Wikipedia

A single person could dispatch a whole batallion of soldiers one by one (one is weakness ) but not if fae has to deal with the entire batallion all at once (one is strength).

Non sequitur. No. :roll:

A single person could dispatch a whole batallion of soldiers one by one (one is weakness ) but not if fae has to deal with the entire batallion all at once (one is strength). — TheMadFool

This depends...

This depends... — Accounting

On?

Non sequitur. No. — 180 Proof

Why? How?

I Work Alone

Sometimes, this lone wolf attitude arose because of some past trauma. They may have had partners, sidekicks, love interests, or other teammates die on them and wound up thinking that working alone won't get anybody else killed. — TV Tropes

The Team

split along particular roles based on complementary skills and personality traits that contribute to group dynamics in their own unique way. — TV Tropes

Also, Divide And Conquer vs Alliance

I don't know about the one per se, but your OP reminded me of Schopenhauer's porcupines:

"One cold winter's day, a number of porcupines huddled together quite closely in order through their mutual warmth to prevent themselves from being frozen. But they soon felt the effect of their quills on one another, which made them again move apart. Now when the need for warmth once more brought them together, the drawback of the quills was repeated so that they were tossed between two evils, until they had discovered the proper distance from which they could best tolerate one another..."

I don't know about the one per se, but your OP reminded me of Schopenhauer's porcupines:

"One cold winter's day, a number of porcupines huddled together quite closely in order through their mutual warmth to prevent themselves from being frozen. But they soon felt the effect of their quills on one another, which made them again move apart. Now when the need for warmth once more brought them together, the drawback of the quills was repeated so that they were tossed between two evils, until they had discovered the proper distance from which they could best tolerate one another..." — Manuel

I vaguely recall reading that - the porcupine principle (balancing safety in numbers with protecting one's privacy). It looks the point to living well is to have a foot in every camp, have the best of all worlds, eat one's cake and have it too. Thanks for reminding me of this gem of wisdom.

One cold winter's day, a number of porcupines huddled together quite closely in order through their mutual warmth to prevent themselves from being frozen. But they soon felt the effect of their quills on one another, which made them again move apart. Now when the need for warmth once more brought them together, the drawback of the quills was repeated so that they were tossed between two evils, until they had discovered the proper distance from which they could best tolerate one another... — Manuel

Familiarity breeds contempt vs Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

It all seems to boil down to minimizing annoyances and grievances that will definitely arise whether more on the lonely camp or the social camp.

It all seems to boil down to minimizing annoyances and grievances that will definitely arise whether more on the lonely camp or the social camp — Manuel

:ok:

Exactly.

Give me a moment please. This happens once every millionth blue moon for me. You can imagine how thrilled I am. This must be what nirvana feels like. A great many thanks to you 180 Proof.