Which comes first the individual or the state?
Is that even the right question?
I’m not really expecting a conclusive result on this but I’d like to hear some of your thoughts about it. Governments and members of the medical profession around the world are making comment about freedom of movement, gatherings, lifestyle, and social distancing, all in the effort to fight and control the Covid virus. Sometimes more than just comments, sometimes fines, arrests and short term incarceration. Some comments have been quite draconian and discriminatory.
These positions put the individual second to the state, the state being the masses viewed as a single entity that functions and survives as a whole or not at all. Yet the principles that lay behind our success are based on the rights of the individual and the strengths of the individual in the sense of the great diversity that lies with the individual and from which our development depends.
I still feel the importance of the individual and still sense the value to everyone of the strength of the individual and yet individuals can start pulling against each other which then leads to the state imposing itself on the individual.
This is not a new concern, but some of the decisions we accept today will obviously affect the future, always in ways we never anticipated.
It’s difficult for me to place the state over the individual, and I can see that one might not survive without the other, and nor can I imagine living any other way, but is it possible I might have to?
I’m not really expecting a conclusive result on this but I’d like to hear some of your thoughts about it. Governments and members of the medical profession around the world are making comment about freedom of movement, gatherings, lifestyle, and social distancing, all in the effort to fight and control the Covid virus. Sometimes more than just comments, sometimes fines, arrests and short term incarceration. Some comments have been quite draconian and discriminatory.
These positions put the individual second to the state, the state being the masses viewed as a single entity that functions and survives as a whole or not at all. Yet the principles that lay behind our success are based on the rights of the individual and the strengths of the individual in the sense of the great diversity that lies with the individual and from which our development depends.
I still feel the importance of the individual and still sense the value to everyone of the strength of the individual and yet individuals can start pulling against each other which then leads to the state imposing itself on the individual.
This is not a new concern, but some of the decisions we accept today will obviously affect the future, always in ways we never anticipated.
It’s difficult for me to place the state over the individual, and I can see that one might not survive without the other, and nor can I imagine living any other way, but is it possible I might have to?
Comments (104)
That's not what the state is, that's what the people is. The state is a monopoly on the use of force. You can have a people without a state, in principle.
Yes I understand that. For this purpose I’m viewing the state as the people as an entity, as an organised political community.
So these are not transhistorical terms, and it is very much an anachronism to ask which came first. Someone posing a similar question in feudal society might have asked: who came first? Priests, farmers, or soldiers? So my sugguestion would be to abstract from the question of 'who' came first, and ask instead which modes of social organisation came first, and how it is that these modes of social organization distributed social and political forms in their wake. The state-form and the individual-form being two political forms that developed in proto-capitalist and capitalist forms of social organization, which also gave rise to the political institution of rights. If you're going to be super abstract, what comes first is simply an ecology of society, organised in different ways.
Good post. My question then is poorly put, what I mean is 'what' should come first and what is best for the future?
That's a pretty big claim. "Our success" has always been achieved in the context of social organisation.
The success I speak of is evolutionary and the fact that we’re here and able to ask the question. Maybe it’s a big claim, but we’re here.
But for the sake of drawing out more angles on the question, what is the the social organisation, how is it structured, by random chance or by deliberately chosen steps? Is it of our making?
Is the idea of the individual just a modern notion that our current position gives us the luxury of playing with? Consequently is it a threat to the idea of the community that the individual exists in and is supported by?
We are here, yes, but none of us got here on our own. We are social animals and if we're talking of "us" as a species, our social structures predate us. Our ancestors have been living in family and band level societies before they evolved into modern humans.
I think setting up the individual against the society, or, in more modern terms, the state, is therefore a bit of a false dichotomy. The two have always existed in relation to each other. And in many ways, our modern version of "the individual", endowed with unalienable rights, is very much a social construction. It's a result of the way western culture has developed.
Quoting Echarmion
Yes, exactly. And I agree with your thoughts on social animals. However was Thomas Becket and individual, Oliver Cromwell? And were they instrumental in who we are now, or, was their individuality disruptive?
Edit: so is this idea of individuality a risk?
It after all is made up of individuals who are public servants that can be fired or replaced.
It's not the 1800s where there was only a few million people in the whole country. There are hundreds of millions here today all of which are allowed to be raised in virtually any environment of any morality and of any level of education. Or lack thereof. Long story short it's a real predicament. It's no longer like the times of the Andy Griffith Show where you can have two cops in the entire town, one who doesnt even carry a gun and have one or two cells with the keys hanging in arms reach.
Therefore, today, neither can exist without the other. A free individual with his or her rights protected.
Should the desires of a single individual have precedence over all others or the system that protects not only theirs but everyone else's (the State)?
The State is not a person. It's a system of duly agreed upon laws, mechanisms, services, and other functions made up of individuals themselves.
Yes, and this is a decision we have to make. How are we going to live, as individuals, which is very possibly a construct, or as members where we accept the greater good over our own interests?
The rights as an individual are given to us, true or false?
Any person who can even be remotely associated with 'the state' is working! An individual getting paid to advance his own good. Lol! :lol:
In the sense he's earning money.
There is corruption. Always has been. Now with FOIA requests much of it can be uncovered or at least draw reasonable suspicion. I'm not in any way saying anything is perfect or their aren't prejudices or people acting on it ergo being literal enemies of the state per the Constitution who can and will be purged.
But. What is the other option? What if all government, police, military dissapeared right now?
Human society has always formed power structures. Gangs, whatever. Free for alls never last because people who aren't idiots realize theres power in numbers. You know that. The individualist will always be protected, by someone or at least a system thought of by someone, who wasn't.
Ideally, the individual because the individual is best informed about their own personal needs, i.e. they are their best personal advocate. The state generally belongs in the background creating and enforcing laws that allow individuals to peacefully go about their daily lives and keep public services running. The caveat to this is when there is a crisis that threatens the population and the state needs to come forth and fight it so things can return back to normal.
Yeah. Now. Tell me something if you're starving, your stomach is growling and you even feel faint. You come across someone smaller than you, with no weapons, just there with I don't know just to make it modern a couple cases of tuna packets, sardines, salmon, etc. Or back then fresh meat, a pile of berries, etc. You ask for some and he says what will you give me and you have nothing. Would you leave? Sure, you might because you're intelligent and a philosopher and believe in something greater. But you get my point
What do you mean by other people's vanity? How does this comprise the state? Appearance over utility?
Quoting neonspectraltoast
Assuming you believe this to be true then the individual suffers through the sense of individuality others have. This is the problem; the idea of individuality means the idea of uniqueness or importance, which translates to lack of compromise. Personally I don’t want to give up many aspects of my life. I might reach a compromise to make something happen as opposed to nothing happening, but it’s rear that I would place myself second to someone else. But I know we can’t live like that and have a functioning community.
The individual does not suffer from the vanity of others, the individual suffers because they can’t have what they want.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That’s true about personal needs, but are personal needs important enough for the general health of the community and future wellbeing?
The state as you define it might belong in the background creating and enforcing laws but that idea of the state is a political tool, or mechanism, for the managing of the real state, which is the population at large.
The Australian Aboriginal culture is regarded as the oldest culture in the world and yet I don’t imagine they survived all that time through the concept of individuality. But it serves our modern culture to believe in the idea of individuality, it drives the economy.
My question is still, if we can, which should we choose?
I take this as your proposition: "In business, individuals submit to the greater good of the company."
Without a definition for "submit" that proposition lacks meaning.
Alternatively I offer, an individual can choose to allocate his scarce time into labor or something else. If labor best maximizes his utility, then he works. The employee doesn't "submit to the greater good of the company". He sells his labor because it is the option that best maximizes his utility.
Quoting Tech
Of course he does, or they no longer have a need for him. The company has an objective that everyone plays a part in achieving. The employee doesn’t go off on his own tangent or belief in what’s good for the company.
It's the other way around. The company has become part of the individual's tangent. The individual determines his goals and the most efficient means for achieving them. The individual then trades his work for cash if and only if laboring for the company qualifies as "most efficient means".
Put another way, the trade only happens when it is the most economical path to his goal. Given that, I do not think his trade is usefully characterized as "submission". But I am interested in your definition of "submission".
Quoting Brett
Voluntary cooperation is a necessary condition for any capitalist regime. I do not observe any irony.
Quoting Tech
To agree to put your own interests second to something else.
Quoting Tech
This is not true. For the employee “most efficient means” doesn’t come into it. He/she applies for a position. On the basis of their potential contribution to the objectives of the company they’re hired.
You might have to define “efficient means”.
The employee and firm are independent entities each having their own goals. The individual agrees to work if and only if he believes the arrangement is beneficial to him. The firm agrees to hire him if and only if the arrangement is beneficial for them. Neither party's goals are subsumed in the process.
The individual doesn't account for the company's goals in his decision making. And likewise, the firm doesn't account for his.
Quoting Brett
The individual has scare resources: time, money, favors owed, etc. He must choose how to allocate these resources to achieve his goals. The "most efficient means" is the allocation that maximizes achieved goals, that is, it the allocation of resources that maximizes his utility.
In this case, the individual must decide how much of his time to allocate towards labor.
Quoting Brett
I don't think "submission" is a special type of action. For the individual, the action either maximizes his utility or it doesn't. Maybe you are making a criticism of modern preferences. "Modern people ought to get more subjective benefit from obeying God."
You seem to have become fixated on a small aside I made about irony. Do you want to have a go at addressing the OP?
we all have an image of, let's call it, the ideal citizen.[/quote]
I’m not sure if we all have the same understanding of a “good citizen”. Though I think there’s a general understanding. But tensions can develop suddenly over who defines it, what it means and how it’s enforced.
The state tends to promote and nurture those who support it.
I think some of the issues that have developed over the Covid virus suggest how the state and individuals can be at odds with each other.
I guess part of my enquiry is at what stage does the individual put his individuality in check.
Quoting TheMadFool
This is an interesting point.
Life for those who can fit into the state will find their reward. For some it’s easier than others. But going against the grain is not easy and the rewards for the individual are unpredictable.
Quoting TheMadFool
You might be missing something.
Do you mind elaborating?
There have been a lot of news reports along the lines of this story;
https://www.9news.com.au/world/britain-obese-people-coronavirus-lockdown-covid19/8338f10f-c31e-4c7c-8f76-466c166d31dc
“ “Britain plans to treat "severely overweight" people as "vulnerable" along with those over the age of 70 and pregnant women, meaning they will need to remain in isolation after general lockdown, the Sun reports.”
It seems to me that this should be an individual decision. If someone over seventy wishes to take the chance then it’s their choice.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/alan-dershowitz-forced-coronavirus-vaccinations-are-constitutional
Not to mention police actions and senseless restriction imposed by authorities.
Too, the obese, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups are to be kept under lockdown for their own safety since they're the ones most likely to end up in a coffin. I see no state-individual conflict at all unless of course the individual is an antisocial.
Quoting TheMadFool
This seems to be an increasingly acceptable idea, that the state knows what’s good for you and will impose themselves on you to achieve that. Specifically I’m thinking of those In their seventies and over in relation to the virus who are deemed incapable of making the “right” choice.
You also said “ Ideal citizens - the infected especially - would choose to remain under lockdown”, and the state assumes this to be what people are thinking. So then we have the state deciding, or assuming, what people want.
All in all your position would be that the state comes before the individual. You said you see no conflict between the individual and the state. But is that the case, or is it only the case if the individual accepts the idea of the state coming first, that the individual serves the state. I don’t mean that in a totalitarian way. I’m interested to see how people think we should shape society. As I said, and others have suggested, the idea of the individual is a relatively new idea.
The state serves both. In democratic countries, where the state is elected by the people, we are lucky to benefit of as much freedoms for the individuals as it is possible.
In regards to today's crisis, I think it is indeed a mistake of the state to impose who is allowed or not to go out. I think it should do recommendations instead. Each citizen's duty is to follow the guidelines as religiously as possible. But we should be free to weigh the risks ourselves, so long as we are not hurting anyone in the process.
It is clear the state today is protecting the group from a more massive outbreak. It shouldn't punish a 70+ year old who needs to go out for his own reasons, as he is only putting himself at risk not the group...
One of the problems I see with the state coming before the individual is that it seems to apply more and more restrictions to the individual to protect the health of the state. In extreme times these restrictions become more rigid. And there are obviously times when this becomes necessary. But the example of the over seventies is not that. But if one regards the state as primary then individuals must submit to what might be regarded as the greater good. But then what value is there in a life if a small percentage can be sacrificed for the greater good?
I imagine smaller, ancient communities existed under strict ideas of behaviour and ranking. To go against the community meant being outcast. That’s how it works, how it sustains itself. But the strict laws and application of them suggests a real fragility, that the individual was a threat to everyone. In some ways it’s like that now. If you go against the grain then you’ll find your life to some degree harder than if you acquiesced.
I agree that there are occasions when individual interests come in conflict with the state interests. However these are simply times when the notion of the ideal citizen is distorted either by individual or the state, resulting in friction between the two. Were it that we all agreed on what the ideal citizen should be, I see no cause for trouble at all.
That said, the relationship between the individual and the state is asymmetric - the latter has more power than the former - and this might lead to state domination over the individual at times.
[Quoting TheMadFool
Absolutely, if we could agree on that. But who determines the ideal citizen? What would it be? From a philosophical point of view wouldn’t it be someone like Socrates? Isn’t that the absolute necessity?
For the sake of survival in the future it’s possible we can no longer have that constant questioning of things, that we must accept a set of ideas that gives the most benefits to the most we can manage. Maybe that means the submission of the individual. Would I be prepared to do that? I’m not sure. Would we have got this far without the challenge of people like Copernicus, or is it likely that we have to accept that everything we need to know is known and therefore not challenge or question and become something that seems alien.
This is not specifically related to the virus. However, I understand the response of governments to unusual circumstances and the need for restrictions on personal freedoms.
Why complain? It’s not a matter of complaining but questioning. But it’s interesting that you use the word “complain”, as if it’s a big bother, and unwarranted for people to question the government, or more importantly the bureaucracies that recommend the restrictions. Ceding individual freedom to a system is a big step.
Is it the governments responsibility to protect people from themselves? Maybe it is, maybe not. That’s my question; how should we decide to live to survive the future?
To answer your question directly, we do.
That said, what I would like to draw your attention to is the way you've made a distinction between the state and the individual. I find this to be a distinction without a difference: it treats the state as having a life of its own and, like individuals, capable of having an agenda that might on occasion oppose individual rights. While I do accept that many times in history the state has been at loggerheads with its people, I consider these to be cases when either the state or the people have failed to keep their end of the bargain.
Quoting TheMadFool
How do we do that, how does it happen?
Quoting TheMadFool
I need to think about this a bit more before I reply.
Quoting Braindead
Okay, fire away.
Quoting TheMadFool
There is a clear distinction between the two. The state does often oppose individual rights and always has. I don’t think you need me to go back over history to prove this. That seems to be a large part of history. Most things we take for granted now have been fought for and often died over.
Quoting TheMadFool
Nor do I agree with your sentiment here. When the individual has been at loggerheads with the state is when those moments in history I referred to happened. I don’t think it’s an matter of each failing to keep their end of the bargain but the natural evolution of civilisation. Would you agree that most, if not all, clashes in the west with governments have been over the rights of the individual? Which suggests a natural antipathy between the two with different objectives.
The purpose of the state is to benefit the individuals who make up the state. If the individuals have rights that make it difficult or impossible for the state to benefit them, then those “rights” are not really for the individuals.
During this virus crisis the state restricts the movements of individuals in order to protect those same individuals. The state does it for the individuals only, so the individuals still come first. No one imagines that they are in lockdown to protect the state.
Now, of course it’s legitimate to ask if the state is going to far. Maybe the measures that are taken cause more damage to the individuals than they benefit them. In that case, it is bad policy, but not because it violates some preconceived principle. Individuals are given rights by the state, not because these rights constitute sacred eternal truths but because it’s the best practical guarantee that in normal circumstances the state will not injure the individuals it is there to protect.
These are not normal circumstances and it would be bad if the rights that normally exist to protect individuals from injury are now used to injure those individuals. The individual always comes first.
Quoting Congau
I agree that these rights we refer to are not sacred eternal truths. But if the state gives the rights to the individual then they are something else. If the state can give and take away the rights it is more like a parent who withdraws privileges from children whose behaviour they are unhappy with, because they believe it is disruptive to the household and a bad precedent for the child.
I would not dispute the integrity of the parents in their concern for the child, but the behaviour they expect from the child may be based on another set of precedents and their own upbringing or social milieu.
So there is an arrangement going on but it seems to me it’s about maintaining the status quo and existing paradigms.
I don’t believe that’s true. Surely individuals come together to form communities. Though in the beginning they were not individuals as we conceive of it but people who needed others to survive. Though a strong, secure community may breed individuals.
Well, surely it is true that man evolved as a social creature before he developed a genuine sense of self? That at least is George Mead's hypothesis, which is the basis for my reasoning.
Think of a lone individual - how would the process of self-identity ever develop? Life would be nothing but an unending series of environmental interactions. Conscious, maybe, but not self-conscious. Self is a social product.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, once the trust is broken they then become two opposed entities. But how does it start, who makes the first wrong move? It’s true we all often violate the rights we award ourselves. In that case we are reminded by the rule of law on what we agreed to. Coexistence is obviously a very fine balance. Maybe it’s a dynamic situation constantly pushing and pulling. So is it possible a generation may misunderstand just what individual rights are, that there are obligations attached. If they can’t conceive of that then the state will have no other course but to remind them of that.
Quoting Pantagruel
Yes, I’d probably agree with that.
So the individual developed from the community/state.
Is that really the case? It seems to me that the state and the individual are an organic growth of necessity and co-existence.
“ The state is the organization while the government is the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy that controls the state apparatus at a given time.[27][28][29] That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.[29] Wikipedia.”
Don’t you think it’s the governments that can be viewed with mistrust, and government actions that individuals regard as impositions on what they regard as their sovereignty. The middle classes have probably been one of the great stabilising forces of the state with their apparent acceptance and support of social mores and laws. For many they’re regarded as a suffocating force that quells individuality, but I’ve often though it’s their stabilising presence that allows for the existence of the individual who rejects their moral and practical beliefs. But the idea of the middle class seems to be dying, that the gap has put them on either the side of the rich or the side of the struggling . I don’t know if that’s true or not.
Many more people than before regard themselves as individuals, though they are obviously not, it’s really a consumer marketing tool. But it’s a big enough idea to challenge the stability of the state. Society is more fragmented than its ever been.
If, as an exercise, I regard the human body as the state and the organs as the individual then it’s clear that the state/body feeds the organs and maintains the health of the body through the health of the organs. But if the organs reject the body only outside interference can remedy that. So does that suggest then that the state must come first.
I just copied this from The Lounge post on nudity:
“ The larger and more sophisticated the society, the more stratified it is by status and property, the more severe the customs imposed are out of a need to maintain order.” @Nils Loc
While I believe that I understand what you are trying to say by using the word "submit", it may not be a good word choice. As you can see, submit has obtained the baggage of having a negative connotation. Perhaps something along the line of, "works towards, or contributes to" would move your idea forward.
You pose one of those eternal questions about individuals and their relationship to the powers that governs them (the state). Where does one start and the other end, and is there any overlap? How much of an individual's rights can be subsumed by the state, and the individual still be free to follow their individual inclinations? Great question, yet, hard to answer definitively! Why? Because we are all individuals and have different viewpoints of where the line lays between individuals and the state.
Quoting Neuron420
I don’t think I do believe it’s the state that governs. It seems to me to be a sort of symbiotic relationship. It’s government that imposes power from outside or above.
Quoting Neuron420
Is this true or just a concept we have of ourselves? Just how many contributing individual are there out there making a difference because if their “individuality”? And in the end what does that word actually mean?
Can you expand on the words in bold? What constitutes this "necessity" and why is "coexistence" relevant to your thesis?
I have no thesis. I’ve asked a question that I have no answer to so I hoped to explore it with others here.
However, in answer to your question regarding “necessity and co-existence”, it’s relevant because they need each other, that they are not really separate entities. It’s necessary that they co-exist for the survival of both.
:up: :ok:
You mean if everyone was to just follow their personal needs would that be enough for a health community and ensure well being? Is that what you're asking? I'd say not necessarily. I feel like what we're missing here is culture. There's always a culture involved, and that culture can be helpful or harmful to ensuring those things you mention.
You're saying the "real" state is the population?
Yes, in ancient times you couldn't just go off into the woods and form your own empire or even really survive. Of course community is needed - we all exist in communities for the most part unless someone wants to self-isolate, but I don't think that's really what's meant by "individualism." When I think "individualism" I more think freedom within a society - especially societies which strongly encourage its members to conform to a certain mold (think religious societies or maybe military societies or others).
Your question - which should we choose - is a good one, and it's debated. I see the two choices as on a spectrum and I think we likely need to find some middle ground. I think culture should exist it's fine if its pushes some messages, but ultimately the individual should be free to make his/her own choices (within reason) and be free to break from or challenge the culture if they wish. The individual should almost always be able to challenge the collective. The sole exception I can think of to this would be military societies where it's not acceptable for, say, a Private to challenge a General.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes. It’s the mass created, like a beehive.
One of my questions is can we, could we, sublimate our individual desires in service of the greater good. Assuming that was the result? There are people who do this without coercion.
I’m not even considering this in terms of a socialist state, or any centralised, authoritarian state, when we consider the opposition of the individual to the state. I’m thinking of it within a reasonably balanced political and social environment.
Individualism, of the individual, is like the idea that all men are equal. Nature says differently, but we chose to try and live by the idea. But it constantly need picking up as it stumbles. If the idea and value of individuality is so important and valuable then why does it threaten the state? And why is it a threat and is that a good or bad thing; see my reference to Copernicus or even the drive towards civil rights for blacks in America, or the vote for women
Edit: the individual must be free from the coercion of the state. But why and to what degree?
How does a movement begin? Is it begun by one lone individual or is there some other mechanism at work? Or does the state itself, unwittingly, create the movement?
Certainly not farmers. We know that much.
Simply put it’s extremely nuanced. Generally speaking humans operate as individual beings and we navigate between what is familiar and what is novel. Being able to differentiate ourselves in a landscape (physical/social/mental) defines what an ‘individual’ is. The ‘state’ part of this is our communal inclinations - we’re not solitary animals (no animal is broadly speaking: meaning the world of every animal is dynamic and so they are never cut-off from it).
What is ‘best’ is a pointless question. The question is more about ‘what are we?’ And the answer to that is a continual process by which we engage in life (actively or passively until death).
The very fact that we split up these ideas as polar items adds further weight to what I‘ve just said. Others are quite right in saying that one doesn’t exist without the other. The way attitudes change does certainly change our parcelling up of these concepts and often enough leads to further separation for further investigation.
There is comfort and safety (possibly leading to stagnation), and hardship and risk (possibly leading to disorientation). Resting in either fully is fatal. Some people - due to personal circumstances - lean moe to one than the other; common factors include upbringing, age, sex, social statuses (within any given group), and health/fitness.
Another point worthy of consideration is the psychological role of the nation compared to that of religion. This is something that has been of significance for some time. What are your thoughts on those in line with the human ‘individual’?
Quoting I like sushi
That’s certainly true in defining us as conscious creatures. But after that, what? How many of us make a difference with our individuality, how many of us are unique, because isn’t that what’s meant by individuality?
Quoting I like sushi
I’m not sure about that. If I can agree to receive a vaccine imposed by the government, or accept restrictions of movement, all for the sake of the community or state, then is it not unreasonable to reconsider my ideas about how the state should be structured if it’s good for the state and consequently achieves the most good for the most people, and should I question my actual “value” as an individual, instead of an idea that satisfies my ego.
Quoting I like sushi
Once it made sense to submit to God. The reward was eternal life in the presence of God. There was little or no reward in the present. Everything was defined by that idea. Of course it was riddled with injustice. But the state as a psychological creature, as opposed to a religious creature, does not seem to be an improvement, and it’s the psychological state that has placed the emphasis on the individual, because that’s where the disease or problem rested, down deeper than the state as it appeared. A happy person was bound to be more of a benefit than the weight of despair. So the emphasis on the individual. The healthy individual was bound to be a benefit but somehow that mutated into the idea that the individual was more important than the state.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting Brett
I think there is just as good an argument from the position that religion developed our sense of individuality. The nation/state has probably exerted more force on the suppression of individualism than religion has - that said, both offer up a sense of identity which was more or less what I was getting at.
Note: Keep in mind ‘religion’ doesn’t require the belief in some deity and/or eternal life - that is just one prevalent iteration of the whole ‘religious’ scheme (as in our common Judeo-Christian heritage as English speaking subjects - we’re culturally entangled in this due to where and when we were born).
As for the part in bold ... why? This is your assumption. Personally speaking the most rewarding strides in my life haven’t been made wading through happiness - maybe you’ve been luckier? :D That said, I do kind of agree. It is not ‘happiness’ that bothers me but more it’s kind of glib use as some kind of ultimate achievement. It is a rather strange term when you think about it that eludes meaning even though we all have experience of it. That is what I was getting at with the ‘best’ point: it’s more about exploration and discovery than some fixed idea of ‘good’/‘bad,’ or ‘happy/sad’ polarity. After all the joys I have experience may pale into insignificance compared to yours or visa versa. We can only find out where we are on any scale of ‘better or worse’ by straddling life and riding it long and hard, and with good helpings of fear and bravery ... even then nothing is guaranteed, but at least it is SOMETHING rather than willful passivity, subjugation and a existential shrug at our sense of being.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes there was more, but I don’t regard my question as about “what we are”. It’s more about what is the best way for us to be to give the most benefits to the most people? Your question related to the individual and their growth. “What we are” is the problem in that it presupposes the priority of the individual. My use of the word happiness probably should have been replaced with “healthy”, as in a “good citizen” in the sense that he/she contributes to the state instead of destabilising it.
And your post, intentionally or not, does bring the focus back to the individual, “We can only find out where we are on any scale of ‘better or worse’ by straddling life and riding it long and hard, and with good helpings of fear and bravery”. Instead of; how can I contribute in a way that creates the most wellbeing for the most people? If you think that your “exploration and discovery” is the way to do that then I’d like to hear in what way.
My question now is, I suppose, in what way are we contributing with our sense of individuality. What do you have to contribute that would create the most good for the most?
‘What we are’ is the bedrock your question lies on though. To explain further, I meant that ‘what is best’ can only be addressed with a fuller understanding of ‘what we are’ - be this as an individual or otherwise. What is more the ‘best’ knowledge we have of the situation of ‘others’ is through ourselves (quite obviously: the ‘obvious,’ ironically, being something easily overlooked!)
What we are presupposes that we exist as humans. That is all. True enough we know this from our own individual perspectives, but that isn’t strictly speaking the same thing as ‘individualism’ - I grant you that.
Quoting Brett
Why would anyone in their right mind presume they know what is better for others? The only way is by throwing our personal perspective on others as if it is as good as identical to others. That seems inherently flawed to me, doesn’t it to you?
Quoting Brett
The most good for the most reeks of a kind of pandering to what others tell me is good, be this through societal conventions or otherwise, rather than what I arrive at as good through my necessarily painful and hard journey of coming to understand ‘what I am’ amongst ‘what we are’ as human beings living a life - which is an unfinished task and remains so (thankfully!)
Maybe I’m veering off-track here?
In short, I see it as much better for me and everyone else to do what I feel as being ‘best’ than to stick to some convention of what is ‘best’ - ie. Follow the nation/state rigidly. That is not to say and don’t see the great use of social agreements. I certainly expect that my wants/needs/desires will conflict with those of others, but I don’t have to, and don’t feel it’s ‘good’ to, adhere to social standards because ‘that is what people do’ ... I find that an unethical and intolerable position to cling to. If my ‘good’ is ‘wrong’ then I suffer the consequences as they come to me without any ‘blame’ to lay at the government, state, nation, god or anything or anyone else’s feet other than my own. I get back up, dust myself down - maybe weep a little - and then carry-on imbued with a ‘better,’ yet faulty, understanding of ‘what we are’ as individual humans among other humans, and what we are as independent beings apart from others.
Sometimes it is more comforting and healthy to adhere to social conventions. Comforting and healthy now may just be discomforting and unhealthy in the near/far future. We can only assess this by remaining open to exploration of ourselves as individuals and as part of AND apart from humanity as a whole.
I’m against the idea, at its core, of a ‘nation of people’ or a ‘state of people’ above the individual human spirit. That is not to say I am against social interaction just its overreaching manifestations - which are clearly present in the modern world at in present conflict with our current freedom to reach around the world with ease (as we are right now on this forum).
Quoting I like sushi
What are we then? One of either two things: a solitary individual or a shared experience of being human. If you reduce a life down to its most basic experience, a “right here, right now” moment, then what it comes down to is the moment you interact with another person and how you treat them, at that very moment.
Quoting I like sushi
This may or may not be true. The best knowledge of others cannot be reached in isolation. One can only achieve an understanding of others by listening, by paying attention. That requires a quietening of your ego.
Quoting I like sushi
I’m not presuming to know what is better for others by suggesting that I act in what may contribute the most good for the most people. I’m taking part in the world as an act. The obvious example of that is the situation of taking a vaccine to help eradicate a disease. I have my doubts about vaccines, I’m not sure about taking them as an individual, what it does to my system, and possibly more importantly the growing demands of health authorities and vaccines becoming mandatory. That seems to be an assault against the sovereignty of my body. That’s my perception of myself as an individual. But why? Am I so important? So I consider the overall benefits to the community by accepting the vaccine.
Quoting I like sushi
Really, who cares about your journey. How does that really help others? How does it really contribute good to others? It’s action that makes the world a better place. The most good for the most people seems a perfectly rational way to live a life. What else would you chose?
I’m not suggesting that “it’s ‘good’ to, adhere to social standards because ‘that is what people do’. But why would you live a life in conflict with people? Are others that bad that you must protect yourself from them. And if they are that bad then why, because their sense of individuality clashes with yours?
Quoting I like sushi
This is the crux of the question I suppose. There is a state, it exists. As Pantagruel suggested; the community came before the individual. So what is the best way to live in it?
And that is a conflation. State does not equate to community. I was quite clear, as others have been, about the difference between a community of humans and a state/nation. The interests are completely different beasts as the latter are VERY recent occurrences - in terms of human existence.
As for the rest its your choice. If you deem your position better so be it ... that is kind of the point I was getting at. If that suits you after your diverse life experiences so be it - how diverse your experiences have been is your concern relative to what you see as appropriate. In simplistic terms we’re born and then we actively map out a cosmological view of our existence in accordance with what we consider too risky and too safe. I’m saying anything fantastic there am I? It’s just how things are for every living creature. We just happen to be able to extend our concerns beyond the knowledge of our death which doesn’t necessarily mean we’re all here to help humanity cease to exist in 5000 years rather than 500 years.
Note: I view more extreme altruistic views with as much concern as I do nihilistic views - at least the latter is more clearly a danger than the former.
This is true. The state is an institution which appeared relatively late in the collective project.
Quoting I like sushi
I don’t see any difference except in size. And size may very well be the problem. But it’s a fact that can’t be ignored. I think states do equate to communities. A state is a community of humans.
Just to help elucidate where I’m coming from;
A state is a polity under a system of governance.
Polities do not necessarily need to be governments. A corporation, for instance, is capable of marshalling resources, has a governance structure, legal rights and exclusive jurisdiction over internal decision making. An ethnic community within a country or subnational entity may be a polity if they have sufficient organization and cohesive interests that can be furthered by such organization. Wikipedia
Quoting I like sushi
Why?
I think there is a significant difference between an organic community (family/clan/tribe) and one that is institutionalized (polity)
Quoting Pantagruel
Definitions seems to be quite broad and most likely defined on the basis of ideology. Weber called it “ a polity that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence“. Wikipedia mentions that “ There is no undisputed definition of a state“.
Where do you think the difference might lie? It seems to me that all of family/clan/tribes have some form of governance, whether it be priests, chiefs or elders. Not to mention the cultural aspects of all communities.
Whatever the definition, can the state exist, can it be called a state, if it doesn’t include the people and their, possibly unconscious, influential affect as a mass?
If what I’m talking about is not the state then I’m happy to consider another term for what I’m talking about. Because I don’t see the individual as being up against governance only, as if everything the individual comes into conflict with springs from authority.
Quoting I like sushi
you can’t really expect me to know what you think. Maybe instead of “why” I should have asked what you mean by “extreme altruism”.
Yes, I thought you were talking about some kind of social collective basically, and were using the term "state" loosely.
I notice you mention Weber. Have you read any Mead? Because one of the books I'm reading right now seems to go to the heart of this topic. It's called "Mind, Self, and Society" and it is quickly becoming one of my favourites.
Okay. Now address this OP with what you know about the Michigan riots. how is your link relevant to that? Don’t give me theories from Wikipedia. How do we live today?
Edit: from an earlier post; How does a movement begin? Is it begun by one lone individual or is there some other mechanism at work? Or does the state itself, unwittingly, create the movement?
Maybe someone else will help you out. GL
Quoting I like sushi
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m asking. Apply your own mind to the the situation or are you going along with Rousseau who thought people did not know their own will, or Proudhon who believed in a social contract that did not involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others, or Pettit who thought that instead of arguing for explicit consent, which can always be manufactured he argues that the absence of an effective rebellion against it is a contract's only legitimacy.
I asked why you viewed extreme altruism with concern and then what you meant by extreme altruism. Then in reply you sent me a link to Wikipedia. So I still have no real idea of what you think or where you’re coming from.
So, which theory on the social contract can we look at the Michigan riots from. They’re not purely black, they are in response to something specific but address some greater underlying problem, they destroy their own environment, they’re probably justified, they’ll spark further riots, they’ll probably lose, and they’ll provoke an aggressive response from authorities.
Isn’t this my whole OP in action, something real instead of speculation on a philosophy forum?
Quoting Pantagruel
I’m not familiar with it but I’ll look into it. Thanks.
So you were just playing dumb. Look where that’s got you ...
Bye!
Quoting I like sushi
I don’t see any evidence of playing dumb. But maybe it’s possible that I don’t see it. So point it out to me.
Hey Brett, I didn't mean to abandon the discussion. In any case you've thrown a lot of questions at me and I'll start with one or two and I guess we'll go from there. I'd rather explore 1-2 questions deeply then go after 5-6 and have everything be shallow/branch off.
I hear this point often, but there's a lot to unpack with the word "equal." If individualism is saying that all men are equal in talent or ability then it's obviously stupid. I think what it's saying is that all men have inherent equal value - e.g. a king's life is ultimately worth the same as a poor man's per se. In any case, broadly speaking I conceive of individualism as just any philosophy which emphasizes the individual and their ability to pursue their own ends unencumbered.
I think it can come to threaten the state because the state ultimately wants to maintain a monopoly on force and it's concerned with power. Note that I'm considering "the state" here as kind of its own entity apart from the individuals composing it. I hope I'm being clear here. As one example of this, lets say Trump and even the US Government as a whole is friendly with Russia. Lets say Trump likes Putin are two are friends.
Well, even still Russia is a growing nation and has historically been expansionist and not too long ago annexed part of Ukraine. Russia is also active in Latin/South America. Even though the two leaders might like each other, the states are in some sort of tension as both vie for power and influence. Both each have powerful space programs.
In any case, I think individualism can threaten the state if an individual accrues considerable power or threatens to undermine the state's power through maybe technology or something along those lines. The battle for encryption/privacy between the state and cypherpunks is what I have in mind here.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
By state do you mean the machinations of the state; the unelected members, the permanent established bureaucrats, or the elected government?
None of those. I guess I'm talking about an abstraction, maybe.
I believe the primary function or purpose of a state is protection: maybe that's protection from other nations or protection of rights... either way, it's about security. if the state is unable to provide adequate security we say it's a "weak state" or a "failed state." I think history also teaches us that governments tend to grow, at least once they've established stability.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Then who’s applying the power, who has the monopoly and who’s doing the protecting?
I understand it's people, but it's also rules and laws and judges. It's a complex system. A threat can still exist to a state even if no one in the government grasps it as a threat. A state can still have interests even if no individual mind grasps it as well.
Like some sort of organic, unconscious entity?
I don't know about organic, but I think this conception of the state is an interesting one and I've been thinking about it for a while. I was originally just tempted to view it as a collection of individuals and that does seem to be the most straight-forward approach but... I'm kind of liking the one I've been thinking of now. Feel free to poke holes or add to it.
It's interesting to think about. Imagine two tribes back in ancient times and the individuals in the tribes are generally friendly, however one of the tribes gradually starts becoming much, much more powerful than the other. Even though the individuals may still remain friendly, the relationship between the groups has likely changed. If a grievance or dispute were to arrive everyone knows who's the boss. An interest of the smaller group here may be to band together with other weaker tribes even if the leadership of the tribe doesn't recognize this and personally likes the individuals in the stronger tribe. Who knows how things will be in later years.
Then maybe you’re thinking of things in terms of a collective. Which I had considered, but I don’t think that works in terms of the state today. It’s likely that there’s a faction within a state, like Permanent Secretaries in government, bureaucrats, careerists, that feed information to politicians and government and are interested primarily in their career. The CIA is primarily careerists, as are all other state departments. This is a monopoly on power, but is it the monopoly people mean when they talk about the state?