Sunday, September 05, 2010

More Thoughts on the Concept of Individualism

Grandpa accepted a challenge to debate someone at a local government seminar.Here was his opening argument in that debate.

“We hear a lot of talk about individualism and collectivism when speaking of politics. The issue comes up whenever people gather and talk about the rights of individual. But what is it that we speak of when we call it the thoughts of an individual or when we speak of collective thought? Just how do we know when our thoughts as individuals turn around and be collective thought?

We know that when any collective gets together and makes a group decision we call it collective decisions and we know that when an individual makes a decision in regards to himself it is an individualistic decision. But how do we know when an individual is thinking in an individualistic manner or when an individual is thinking in terms that can be declared as being in a collective manner?

What causes the confusion between the two concepts on an individual level of thought? And how can we ascertain when we are in one mode of thought or in the other? We know that regardless of which mode of thought we are in any decision we make will have an effect on others. This is inevitable.

Is it even possible for an individual to make every decision purely within the concept of individualism or are there times he needs to rely on collective thought mode to make a good decision? Is it even possible for an individual to live within a collective without becoming victims of collective thinking over time?

These questions are important in my mind for I have heard many who are advocates of individualism but many of their ideas can only be called collective thought. And this can be dangerous to a collective of people that values individualism as much as we do in this nation.

This nation was founded upon the idea of individualism. Proof of this can be found in the U.S, Constitution. This proof is called the Bill of Rights. And as long as individualism lives within the minds of the people those principles found within that document will continue to have meaning.

More proof of this is found in the right to vote. As voters we are allowed to speak our minds as individuals by voting for someone that we, as individuals, believe will best represent us in government affairs. When we vote to keep someone out of office rather than voting for the man we want in office we are voting with a collective mindset.

One more thing must be considered, free will and determinism. Individualism is an advocate of the free will concept because it is a self-centered concept. It is based upon the idea that what is good for the individual is good for the collective. Its morality is based upon the idea of “The end does not justify the means”. The concept of individualism relies on the recognition and adherence of the rights of the individual by the collective as the rightful means to govern.

Collectivism promotes the concept of determinism because it is an others-centered concept. It is based upon the idea that what is good for the collective is good for the individual. Its morality is founded on the idea that “The end does justify the means”. The concept of collectivism relies on its power over the individual as the rightful means to govern.

An Individualist recognizes that his rights must be consistently applied to all individuals not only of his generation but to all generations. And that those rights must have the same meaning for all individuals regardless of who the person may be or of what generation that individual may belong. That is the foundational basis of the concept of precedence that is found within the law.

Without the concept of precedence the law can mean whatever the men of power deems it to be at any time. When that occurs power can only be abused and unauthorized. When that happens justice, as we know it to be, ceases to exist as a valid goal for the rule of law.”

With these words said his time was up and he turned the podium over to his opponent so that he could present his opening argument.

14 comments:

Lista said...

These are Excellent Questions, Griper. Really Really Good. I'm Actually Impressed by the Direction that your Thoughts are Headed in, because it has to do just as much with the Concept of Compassion and Love, as with Individualism and Collective Thought. And I'm so Glad I came Back to your Blog because it Moves us out of the Rut we were in in Previous Conversations.

It Looks Like I'm Going to Have to Respond to this Post in Two Parts, Cause there is an Awful Lot to Respond to.

My First Thought was that an Individual is thinking "Collectively" when he is in Agreement with the Decision of the Majority of the others in the Group. When a Person has Power and Authority, though, and there is no Democracy, the Decision can either be Individual and Selfish (Only Considering the Needs of Oneself), or Collective (Also Considering the Needs of the Rest of the Group; Employees, Family, Etc.)

"Is it even possible for an individual to make every decision purely within the concept of individualism or are there times he needs to rely on collective thought mode to make a good decision?"

In My Opinion, because of the Fact that "any decision we make will have an effect on others." all Decisions should be Made in at Least Somewhat of a Collective Manner, that is Considering the Affect it will have on Others.

I Don't Really Think that Allowing Ourselves to be "Influenced" (A Word We've Discussed Often/Not Controlled, but Influenced) by the Thoughts of Others; "Collective Thinking"; Makes us Victims. Being Willing to "Consider" the Thoughts and Needs of Others when Making Decisions is a Form of Compassion and Love. If that makes us into Victims, then why did Jesus say "It is Better to Give than to Receive."?

I Wonder if "Individualism" Taken to Extreme (Extreme Capitalism) is just As Destructive as "Collective Thinking" Taken to Extreme (Communism)?

Well, That's my Response to your First Seven Paragraphs. I'm Going to Respond to the Rest Later. I'm Learning that you have such a Large Amount to Say Sometimes, that it is Necessary for me to Take it in Smaller Chunks at a Time.

The Griper said...

lista,
"I Wonder if "Individualism" Taken to Extreme (Extreme Capitalism) is just As Destructive as "Collective Thinking" Taken to Extreme (Communism)?"

there cannot be anything destructive in a free enterprise form of economy. remember, any business proposition requires two individuals. and the most extreme of this sort of economy is two persons haggling over a trade of goods, each of them trying to get the better of the deal.

Lista said...

Griper,
A Person can not Be Free Unless he is Allowed to Own a Little Something and a Person can not Own Much of Anything if he has no God Given Potential that can be Developed and is Marketable. If a Person Does not Possess something within him that is Marketable, then he has no Power to Bargain and Negotiate with.

The Greatest Freedom Belongs to Those who have the Power. Power is where Freedom Really Comes From. Those with the Power are Free and in the Absence of Regulation, those without Power are their Slaves.

The Weakest Among us have Freedom that is Very Limited until the Government Intervenes.

Lista said...

Ok, Now Getting Back to the Thoughts that I did not Finish Yesterday.

Boy, Griper, you’re Post is just Full of Issues that Could Take Pages of Writing to Adequately Address!

"When we vote to keep someone out of office rather than voting for the man we want in office, we are voting with a collective mindset."

So which is Better, to Vote Individually, or to Vote Collectively. Actually Groups have more Power than Individuals and so in my Opinion, Voting Collectively Makes a lot of Sense, if we Want to Actually have at Least a Little Bit of say, or Put another Way, More of the "Power", or more of an Immediate "Influence" over the Outcome. Go Ahead and Pick the Word that Best Suits you.

I Almost Wrote you an Email about Free Will and Determinism. Perhaps it is just as well that I did not Deliver it, because Reworded just Slightly, that could be my Next Post. Meanwhile, I could Respond to your Idea that, "Individualism is an advocate of the free will concept because it is a self-centered concept. It is based upon the idea that what is good for the individual is good for the collective." Yes, this Idea is Self-Centered and I do not Agree with the idea that it is Based on, which is "that what is good for the individual is good for the collective." You see, too Often this Translates into what is Good for the Strong (Those in Authority or Those with the Power) and what is Good for the Strong is not the Same as what is Good for the Weak.

I’m Going to have to Think on the "End Justifying" or not Justifying "the Means". I View that a Little Differently than you do, but I can see now that I’m Likely going to be Working on this Post for a Little While before I Get all of my Thoughts Out. In Short, it has to Do with whether a Person Agrees or not with "the Means", or for that Matter, with "the Ends". Perhaps there are Positives and Negatives to Either "Means" and Either "End". More on that One Later.

As to the "Self-Centered" and "Other-Centered Idea.", or Put Another Way, the "Self-Motivated" and "Other-Motivated" Idea, it is Better not to Think of these Things in Terms of Extremes, Black and White or One or the Other. A Combination of Both is what is Best. Hopefully, you will Understand One Day what it is that I am Saying.

Three More Paragraphs to Read and Respond to. You are just Too Thought Provoking, Griper. I almost Can’t Handle it all. As I Pause just Briefly, I’m going to do Something Really Odd and Admit to you that In Spite the Fact that I’ve Really Given you a Really Hard Time Over the Years, I have Learned From you more than I’ve been Willing to Admit to. I Truly do Hope that you have Learned from me as Well.

One Last Thought...

"The concept of collectivism relies on its power over the individual as the rightful means to govern."

The Concept of the Individual, though, too Often Translates into the Power of the Individual (The Rich) Over the Collective (The Poor). Perhaps it Sounds as if I am Supporting Communism, but I am not. I am Only Illustrating that Extreme, Unregulated Capitalism has it’s Problems as Well.

The Griper said...

lista,
your question was about two economic systems and their extremes, not about the freedom of individuals who can or cannot participate in that system.

if freedom belongs to those with power then those persons with the authority to regulate are the ones who possess power and to follow your logic the rest of us have no power which makes us slaves of the state.

Lista said...

Ok, now for the Finishing of the Thoughts I had Yesterday.

Boy, Griper, you’re Post is just Full of Issues that Could Take Pages of Writing to Adequately Address.

"When we vote to keep someone out of office rather than voting for the man we want in office we are voting with a collective mindset."

So which is Better, to Vote Individually, or to Vote Collectively. Actually Groups have more Power than Individuals and so in my Opinion, Voting Collectively Makes a lot of Sense, if we Want to Actually have at Least a Little Bit of say, or Put another Way, More of the "Power", or more of an Immediate "Influence" over the Outcome. Go Ahead and Pick the Word that Best Suits you.

I Almost Wrote you an Email about Free Will and Determinism. Perhaps it is just as well that I did not Deliver it, because Reworded just Slightly, that could be my Next Post. Meanwhile, I could Respond to your Idea that, "Individualism is an advocate of the free will concept because it is a self-centered concept. It is based upon the idea that what is good for the individual is good for the collective." Yes, this Idea is Self-Centered and I do not Agree with the idea that it is Based on, which is "that what is good for the individual is good for the collective." You see, too Often this Translates into what is Good for the Strong (Those in Authority or Those with the Power) and what is Good for the Strong is not the Same as what is Good for the Weak.

I’m Going to have to Think on the "End Justifying" or not Justifying "the Means". I View that a Little Differently than you do, but I can see now that I’m Likely going to be Working on this Post for a Little While before I Get all of my Thoughts Out. In Short, it has to Do with whether a Person Agrees or not with "the Means", or for that Matter, with "the Ends". Perhaps there are Positives and Negatives to Either "Means" and Either "End". More on that One Later.

As to the "Self-Centered" and "Other-Centered" Idea, or Put Another Way, the "Self-Motivated" and "Other-Motivated" Idea, it is Better not to Think of these Things in Terms of Extremes, Black and White or One or the Other. A Combination of Both is what is Best. Hopefully, you will Understand One Day what it is that I'm Saying.

There are Three More Paragraphs to Read and Respond to. You are just Too Thought Provoking, Griper. I almost Can’t Handle it all. As I Pause Briefly, I’m going to do Something Really Odd and Admit to you that In Spite the Fact that I’ve Really Given you a Really Hard Time Over the Years, I have Learned From you more than I’ve been Willing to Admit to. I Truly do Hope that you have Learned from me as Well.

"The concept of collectivism relies on its power over the individual as the rightful means to govern."

The Concept of the Individual, though, too Often Translates into the Power of the Individual (The Rich) Over the Collective (The Poor). Perhaps it Sounds as if I am Supporting Communism, but I'm not. I'm Only Illustrating that Extreme, Unregulated Capitalism has it’s Problems as Well.

Lista said...

Ok, now for the Finishing of the Thoughts I had Yesterday.

I'll Get to your most Recent Comment in a Moment. I'm having Trouble Delivering this Comment because the Computer is Telling me that it is too Long, so I'm going to Break it Down.

Boy, Griper, you’re Post is just Full of Issues that Could Take Pages of Writing to Adequately Address.

"When we vote to keep someone out of office rather than voting for the man we want in office, we are voting with a collective mindset."

So which is Better, to Vote Individually, or to Vote Collectively. Actually Groups have more Power than Individuals and so in my Opinion Voting Collectively Makes a lot of Sense if we Want to Actually have at Least a Little Bit of say, or Put another Way, More of the "Power", or more of an Immediate "Influence" over the Outcome. Go Ahead and Pick the Word that Best Suits you.

I Almost Wrote you an Email about Free Will and Determinism. Perhaps it is just as well that I did not Deliver it, because Reworded just Slightly, that could be my Next Post. Meanwhile, I could Respond to your Idea that, "Individualism is an advocate of the free will concept because it is a self-centered concept. It is based upon the idea that what is good for the individual is good for the collective." Yes, this Idea is Self-Centered and I do not Agree with the idea that it is Based on, which is "that what is good for the individual is good for the collective." You see, too Often this Translates into what is Good for the Strong (Those in Authority or Those with the Power) and what is Good for the Strong is not the Same as what is Good for the Weak.

Lista said...

Here's a Response, Griper, to your most Recent Comment.

The Reason Why Economic Systems are Extreme is because of the Effect that each of these Extremes has on the Freedoms of Individuals. If there were not Negative Side Effects, then the Extremes would not Matter so much. It is the Negative Side Effects that Make Extremes so Negative, so to Argue against Extremes, I have to Point to the Effects that these Extremes have on Individual Freedoms.

As Long as those who have the Authority to Regulate are Elected, than the Power Still Belongs to the People, but if Regulation is Removed, than the Power Belongs Only to the Strong. All Regulation Does is Forces the Strong to Submit to the Desires of the Majority who Elect those in Power.

There's More, but maybe I'll Finish it Later.

The Griper said...

lista,
"...and what is Good for the Strong is not the Same as what is Good for the Weak."

that depends upon the recognition and value you place upon the benefits a person derives from that transaction or relationship.

don't automatically presuppose exploitation of the weak. that is what socialists promotes as justification of their ways.

Lista said...

I am Only Talking about the Extremes and in Extreme Capitalism, Exploitation does Occur. I do not Believe in Extreme Socialism either, because in that Case the Exploitation is done by the Government instead. To Keep the Power Balanced, what is Needed is something in the Middle. Now Excuse, me for Now, but I've Got to get Off the Computer.

Lista said...

Well, I didn't Know that I was going to be Back so Soon, but I sort of Did Want to Finish my Thoughts in Relation to this Post, or at Least the Part of it that I have Saved in my Word Processor.

Starting with the 9th Paragraph Down, or the 5th One from the Bottom, I’m Going to have to Think on the "End Justifying" or not Justifying "the Means". I View that a Little Differently than you do and I may Come Back and Explain that More a Little Later, yet for now, I'm just Going to say that it has to Do with whether a Person Agrees or not with "the Means", or for that Matter, with "the Ends". Perhaps there are Positives and Negatives to Either "Means" and Either "End". More on that One Later.

As to the "Self-Centered" and "Other-Centered" Idea, or Put Another Way, the "Self-Motivated" and "Other-Motivated" Idea, it is Better not to Think of these Things in Terms of Extremes, Black and White or One or the Other. A Combination of Both is what is Best. Hopefully, you will Understand One Day what it is that I'm Saying.

"The concept of collectivism relies on its power over the individual as the rightful means to govern."

The Concept of the Individual, though, too Often Translates into the Power of the Individual (The Rich) Over the Collective (The Poor). Perhaps it Sounds as if I am Supporting Communism, but I'm not. I'm Only Illustrating that Extreme, Unregulated Capitalism has it’s Problems as Well.

You are just Too Thought Provoking, Griper. I almost Can’t Handle it all. In Closing, though, I'm going to do Something Really Odd and Admit to you that In Spite the Fact that I’ve Really Given you a Really Hard Time Over the Years, I have Learned From you more than I’ve been Willing to Admit to. I Truly do Hope that you have Learned from me as Well.

The Griper said...

lista,
"You are just Too Thought Provoking, Griper."

if you look at what i said in my profile then you'll understand why i try to be thought provoking in my posts. i'm not here to convince anyone to my way of thinking. my only purpose is give people reason to delve into their own thoughts a little deeper.

Lista said...

"You are just Too Thought Provoking, Griper."

I Guess that was Meant to be a Complement.

I Guess I've Just Left one Thought Incomplete and that is the Thoughts about "the 'End Justifying', or not Justifying 'the Means'"

To "Delve into" the Subject a Little Deeper, I Need to Go Back up to the 5th Paragraph Up from the Bottom of your Post.

In this Paragraph you have Said that the Concept of "Individualism" is Based on the Idea of "The End Does not Justify the Means". By this, I Assume that you Mean the "End" of Equality, Does not Justify the "Means" of Depriving of Freedom, yet that Depends on how much a Person Values Equality and Also on Exactly What type of Freedom we are Talking about.

Tell me if I am Viewing this Incorrectly, yet if not, an Interesting Parallel is that we do Not Think anything of Using the "Means" of Depriving Criminals of Freedom, in Order to Achieve the "End" of the Basic Safety and Protection of the Public.

In the Next Paragraph (4th Paragraph from the Bottom), you say that Collectivism "is Founded on the Idea that 'The End does Justify the Means.'" and I would have to say, Yes, I Agree with that in that the "End" of Protecting the Weak from Excessive Exploitation does Justify the "Means" of a Few Reasonable Regulations. The Confusing Part is Trying to Figure Out Exactly how Much Regulation is Reasonable and when is it too Much, to the Point of Hurting Businesses and the Economy.

Of Course all of this Needs to be Kept within Reason. Cost Benefit Analysis Needs to be Done on all Levels. Environmental Impact, Economic Impact, Cost and Benefit to the Strong, Cost and Benefit to the Weak, Cost and Benefit to the Economy. Etc. Etc. Etc. Too Often People Only Think about One Side of the Issue and do not See the Whole Picture.

Lista said...
This comment has been removed by the author.

Followers

Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code

 

Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster