1 > 2
Human society - and not just contemporary society - always seems to have sought - and often forced - the homogeneity of the thought that "the group must always come before the Self" and to implement it in civilization. This was done several times throughout history - through Bronze Age Ethics, Classical Christianity, and Communism and its contemporary Gnosticism -.
The fact is that, if we analyze the root of this problem - in this case, the concepts -, it is noticeable that metaphysically, the "community", or rather, any concept of "more than one" can only come into existence if the Self came previously. That is:
"So that 2, 3, 4, 5... may come into being as concepts, the 1 must have been conceived beforehand."
Therefore, the idea that the individual only emerges after the community is nothing more than demagogy or doublethink of those who, having conceived their individuals - their Self - need others to share their freedoms as Beings in order to exacerbate the individual from the conscious one.
The perception that actually makes sense and should be widely applied is that "a group larger than 1 can only come and is a direct consequence of the existence and actions of a primordial unit, the "One" - or Being , Individual, Ego, Egoism, etc ... -.
The fact is that, if we analyze the root of this problem - in this case, the concepts -, it is noticeable that metaphysically, the "community", or rather, any concept of "more than one" can only come into existence if the Self came previously. That is:
"So that 2, 3, 4, 5... may come into being as concepts, the 1 must have been conceived beforehand."
Therefore, the idea that the individual only emerges after the community is nothing more than demagogy or doublethink of those who, having conceived their individuals - their Self - need others to share their freedoms as Beings in order to exacerbate the individual from the conscious one.
The perception that actually makes sense and should be widely applied is that "a group larger than 1 can only come and is a direct consequence of the existence and actions of a primordial unit, the "One" - or Being , Individual, Ego, Egoism, etc ... -.
Comments (51)
That might be true, but you'll have a hard time convincing those who believe that an individual is necessarily a part of a group. However, the logic is on your side. A "group", as a multiplicity, by definition requires the existence of individuals. But there is nothing within the concept of "individual" which requires that one is the member of a group. In this way, "individual" is logically prior to "group", because "group" is dependent on "individual", while the inverse is not the case.
I don't think this holds from either a logical or a historical perspective.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
While the term "individual" may not logically depend on a specific group, it does depend on the concept of a multitude. You can only be an individual if you can be differentiated from someone else in some way. Without this, nothing would give rise to the notion of individuality.
From a historical perspective, it seems clear that individuation requires contact with other humans, and there has never been a time in human history where humans did not live in some kind of community. In this sense, "communism" is humanities ancestral form, and individualism is a recent invention.
I think that what you are saying is right, but has often being ignored. I found that to be especially true when I was being brought up as a Catholic. As an adolescent I remember someone giving me advice that I should, 'lose myself in order to find myself' and he was trying to tell me that I should ignore my own wishes etc.
Also, many Christians speak of loving one neighbour as the most significant thing, but actually that is ignoring the whole part 'as yourself', because if you cannot love yourself how can you begin to love others. The attempt to love others, without understanding one's own needs, leads to shallow do-gooders.
Of course, the whole problem is much more complicated now, because many people have gone from the principle of caring for others to the complete disregard of others outside their immediate circle. We have moved in ways to an age of individualism, a fragmented society of lost connections and many becoming isolated.
Perhaps the only way to address the balance would be if people realised that we have to understand and attain our own needs as a starting point. It may have got to the point where we need to get back to the real basics of living and denial of the self would be the worst possibility and a whole means of blindness.
This is not true. "Individual" is defined by unity, not by being differentiated from its environment. That's why the universe, which is supposed to be a unity of everything, is an individual without the need of being differentiated from anything else.
So you appear to be confusing "individuation" which is an act that distinguishes an individual from its environment, with the definition of "individual" which is based in the concept of unity rather than an act of individuation.
This is accurate with regards to the concept of individuality, as without a group there is nothing to contrast with, ergo no differentiation can occur. However, a group is not required for the determination of the self.
I believe that the individual is the fundamental threat to the group, despite being inherently required for the group, hence the insistence by the group to subjugate the individual. "The good of the many outweigh the good of the one", "the greater good", etc. With the determination of the self, as an independent entity and unattached to the group, comes the threat that said determination may spread throughout the group, reducing the engagement in the group and weakening the group. If this occurs frequently enough, the group, as a single entity, will die. Other, smaller groups may result, Likeminded selves congregating together, or isolated individuals will exist in a solitary manner. Regardless, the initial group is no more.
If an individual is one step ahead of the group they are a leader. Two steps; a Visionary. Four steps: a threat to be destroyed.
That's not how people use the word individual. Being individual means discrete, e.g. seperated, distinct and differentiated. Unity can be more things united as a whole. So several individuals can form unity.
Take the universe as an example of an individual is a bit ridiculous really because quite clearly it contains individuals.
According to whom though? We haven't really settled on any definition, and I was assuming we go by the common meaning.
If a mindless insentient group (collection of organisms) can exist prior to the development self-reflection and counting its constituents (selves) by some language then isn't that a case where a group exists prior to the concept of the self?
Or are we talking purely about the hypothetical sequential emergence of these concepts? Why not simultaneous emergence of self (1) aside other (2)?
Surely it helps to have multiples of a kind in order to say that at any time there is only 1 of a kind out of other possibilities (2, 3, 4..). There is one what? One what? There is two what? Two what?
Cue the mirror!
"Individual" is not synonymous with "Individuality". It is easy to confuse the metaphysical perceptions of "One in existence" and "Being one in existence"
Quoting Echarmion
It is very likely that your perception of what a perfect world would be is seriously affecting your perception of reality. Human nature was never "group mentality" "but "egoistic". Man exists to fulfill himself individually, not to fulfill the will of the community, in fact, it is the individual's own action to be fulfilled that consequently creates the community...
You've talked about "...the primordial unit, the one..." and it resonates with my thoughts - how exactly did the all/the many come to be? By way of an answer in concordance with the OP's thesis, I suggest contextualizing the matter within reproduction. A human body is a community of cells that has been accorded the status of a unit, a one, an individual but that's not the end of the story for this community of cells also began as a unit, a one, the zygote - the "...primordial unit..." - formed when sperm and egg fuse. It's as if the all/the many is an illusion and science has, by digging up the hidden unity, on multiple occasions, dispelled this illusion. :chin:
This is a puzzle I've been grappling with for the past week or so. A single cell divides but the net effect is multiplication into a population of cells and when you divide this population, you get back to a single cell. The one divides into the many and the many divides into the one.
It is unless we're operating on a specific definition, in which case this should be set out in the beginning.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Do you have anything specific you can point to here? In anthropology, it's not in doubt that our particular line of ancestors had been social, group animals long before anatomically modern humans were around. And what we know of band-level societies - i.e. the lowest level of organisation - shows that mutual support is the norm. Of course using the term "communism" for this kind of mutual support is provocative, and it's different from the 20th century political project of communism. But it's also a far cry from egoism.
Quoting Echarmion
The "group" exists only to benefit the individual and its goals. For what reason do you believe that irrational animals - and rational, as in the case of humanity - come together in groups? This "alliance" - commonly referred by us, as community, civilization, etc ... - is simply a consequence of the perception that individuals seek self-realization. Obviously if some people with the same purpose meet, they would probably create some kind of relationship, as this will make it easier for them to reach their individual goals. The fact is, the group only comes to exist - as in the form of the concept - if, and only if, the individual wants it to exist.
My egoism.
This implies that humans start as individuals and then "come together in groups". But that is not what historically happens. Humans always already start out as part of a group, and the rare exceptions where this isn't the case will not have "normal" cognition.
So what you're describing can only be a thought experiment, where we imagine humans somehow enter a world as fully formed individuals yet they're not already in some kind of relation to each other. But even then I don't see the justification for reducing all human goals down to egoism. You're basically claiming you can rephrase all human intentions as some form of egoism, but that is merely a semantical game, not a profound insight.
I don't know you, but when I was conceived, I was only me, not a group of any kind.
when you were conveived, you were your mother.
Yet, even another proof that I was an individual even though it was no the Self I call as I.
I do not follow.
While generally I do think that you make some very good arguments, I think that you do have to ask what you consider to be the 'self'.
Also, you have to remember that even the term ego can be interpreted in different ways. I use the word a lot but I am mainly influenced by the psychoanalytic writers, including Freud. I imagine that your thinking is not from this perspective at all, but I am wondering how do you define the ego?
When you list what "individual" means, discrete, separated, distinct, and differentiated, why do you intentionally exclude "unity" and "whole" from this? Is an individual not necessarily a unity? How could an individual be other than a whole? I suggest you are just making this distinction in an attempt to support an untenable position.
Sure, several individuals might be united, but that does nothing to diminish the claim that one individual is a more fundamental unity than a group of several individuals, which as a group might also be referred to as an individual unity. Likewise 1 represents a more fundamental unity than 3 does, because 3 is dependent on 1 for its meaning, but 1 is not dependent on 3 for its meaning.
Quoting Benkei
You have no argument there. There is nothing about the concept of "individual" which denies an individual from being composed of parts, which are themselves individuals. Any group, is itself an individual, by the fact that it exists as a group. The point though, is that the individuals which make up the group are necessarily prior to the group. The group, as an individual, has no existence until there is a multitude of individuals which make up the group. So the group cannot be prior to the individuals which make up the group. However, there might be first, just one individual, then there'd be an individual but no group.
Quoting Echarmion
So was I. An individual is a single, a single is one, and one is a fundamental unity. The common meaning of "individual" is a fundamental unity. You might say that an "individual" is a person. But isn't this exactly what a person is, a fundamental unity?
"Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno"
(one for all, and all for one)
You care about yourself, right? Wish to survive, live, and thrive? Others wish to do the same. Tell me, exactly how much land, resources, and people do you think you could protect on your own? How much can the larger group protect? So, by protecting the larger group and being selfless, you protect yourself and your own freedom to be selfish. Ironic, I suppose.
I note that you appeal to us using arithmetic and logic, our shared cultural heritage. I note also that you appeal to us at all, in the first place, for the recognition of some kind of trans-individual validity of your thought.
We are born mute and helpless. Older humans keep us alive and teach us a shared language, keeping their own bodies alive by participating in a community.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Of course certain roles are imposed on the members of a community. Certain actions are forbidden while others are demanded. In societies that tolerate and even encourage individuality, we can realize that any particular set of rules/customs is just the way 'we' happen to do things. But learning to do that is one of the roles that's imposed on us these days.
'Look at me: I'm freer than you, more intense than you. Feel free to recognize and imitate my virtue. Perhaps write a book about me to survive me when this flesh fails.'
I assumed on first reading this sentence you were referring to the idea that we should prioritise the many over the few: the only meaning of "the group must always come before the Self" I've ever heard. However, you take this to mean "the origins of the group precede that of the Self". Can you cite any references for this?
The only sense I can make of that is that the Self is singular and specific: there is no Self not born into a pre-existing group. Humans are biologically inclined to group behaviour, which could not be true without the concept of a group. Remove that group-dependence, and you're not talking about a person any more.
I am not sure about your idea that being part of a group is central to being a person, or to what extent. Perhaps I am a little bit on the autistic spectrum but I have found that having to spend too much time with others is so stressful.
I am constantly seeking out corners where I can be by myself, free from the demands and constraints of others. I think that we need to have more scope to be individuals, rather than being constrained to fit into groups. I don't mind social distancing, with my reading and writing, as long as I can go into somewhere indoors to do this. Of course, I am reading books written by others and I do communicate with others, so I am not an 'island', but if I can't get any time alone I feel like I am going crazy.
I just hate being part of the herd.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
I don’t know about that. It’s the community that creates the environment that enables a person to pursue ideas of individuality. Before the community, or tribe, he was an animal trying to survive from one day to the next. Survival was his intent not his perception of himself as anything.
My apologies if this has already been mentioned.
For all I know you're also sterile... it's still true that humans reproduce sexually :)
Humans have a natural capacity for empathy. This capacity can be suppressed, not just in a permanent way but circumstantially. For instance, most people have anti-empathetic responses to out-group members. This capacity is very much tied to our drive toward altruistic behaviour. We have this feature for a reason: living in small social groups is better for us on the whole.
Few of us live in small social groups now. Partly because of higher mobility and population density, partly because the reigning sociopolitical memes are isolationist and individualist, a huge number of us would, like yourself, prefer to keep our neighbours at arms length (not a Covid reference). Our way of living makes mutual reciprocity as a default social behaviour neither generally possible or particularly attractive. Nonetheless we carry that part of ourselves with us. It manifests itself in most of our religions, our storytelling and our moral beliefs which ever tends toward inclusivity, pacifism, compassion and egalitarianism. We are born both selfish and selfless, with exceptions.
But I wouldn't interpret that as the group coming before the individual. Our social nature is part of our individual nature (since those biological capacities were selected to benefit the individual) and, while you can have individuals without groups, you may not have groups without individuals.
As far as I am aware, I am not sterile or lacking in empathy. I am not suggesting that we, as individuals, should be totally detached from others, without needs for friendship, but sometimes it does seem as if the whole emphasis on group supremacy seems to rule. For example, I have gone into a pub, with a book, wishing to be left alone , just to be given space to read and, despite the social distancing rules, I have been told to move, to make way for groups.
I am not wishing to spend my life entirely alone, and wish to converse with others for discussion, and even sex, but think that there is a danger that the individual quest is seen as irrelevant in the spectrum of consideration of groups as being of supreme importance.
I am not dismissing the need for some kinds of social bonding, but, at the same time, individual lives and quests should not be dismissed, under the guise of group majority. We are not mere parts of groups, but individuals, with our own mythic journeys, which should not be seen as secondary to the group mind. Perhaps the individuals who stand outside, as the creative outsiders, may be the ones who usher in and bring forth the most creative possibilities.
This is a good point, but I think the issue of the op is whether this natural capacity for empathy is caused by group existence, or is the cause of group existence. It appears like the latter is what is the case.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
At this point you seem to concur, that the existence of the group is caused by the existence of the individuals. But if this is the case, that the capacity, or propensity for empathy is prior to the group which it produces, it creates a perplexity. Why are individual living beings naturally endowed with a propensity toward creating groups?
I think that you are going to feel bombarded by all the responses you have, and all the startling, offbeat ones.
I had noticed that you had not posted on this site for a long while, and had thought that you had become completely fed up with this site. If nothing else, perhaps all the responses you are getting, suggests that your whole philosophy of egoism is an important area, worthy of debate.
I hope I am. Literally zero downside that I can see.
Quoting Jack Cummins
The fact that we have intrinsic social capacities does not necessitate that everything we do must be social: we have other (more selfish) drives as well as other wants and needs. Hunger, for instance. It just means that, whatever we do, we have some social consideration. When you read your book in the pub, you probably assume that you'll be left alone because 'alone with book' signals 'doesn't want to chat about football'. That's a dependence on social awareness right there. And if you see that the woman next to you leaves her purse when she goes, you're probably going to holler after her even though you could totally get away with pretending not to have noticed (altruism) because, shoe on other foot, you'd want people to do the same for you +reciprocal altruism).
I think it is about self interest, but with a need to respect others.
Right now, the rules are that I can buy a drink if I buy food. So, reading a book is okay if I eat and drink, but becoming fat would be worse than sterility. I do get involved in philosophy discussion sometimes in the process, which is far better than football, although music is my football.
But I don't want to mess up Gus's thread any longer with the narcissistic aspects of my own ego. But I do believe in the importance of the ego, so I am trying to argue in favour of the argument of the post thread, and the importance of the individual.
I don't quite see where you get the unity aspect from. And I think the concepts of single and multitude are mutually dependant. They only become intelligible in conjunction with the other. If there was only one of a kind of entity, we wouldn't call it a "single entity", we'd call it by it's name. Just like we'd not call someone named "Jason" a "single Jason" unless there was some need to differentiate.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
From an evolutionary perspective, it seems like some kind of gathering would have had to come first. A random mutation for sociability wouldn't benefit a species unless they were interacting in some way.
Quoting Echarmion
What do you mean by “random mutation for sociability”? A mutation of what?
In one of my posts I mentioned “ Before the community, or tribe, he was an animal trying to survive from one day to the next.” But having thought about it that seems a bit far fetched. I had imagined this lone creature struggling alone within an inhospitable existence. But I don’t see how that creature could survive like that. Nor is there any reason for that creature to leave the security of its family. So if a creature is born, already endowed with a sense of empathy, within a small social group, being the family, then I can’t see what sort of mutation might have brought people together. It seems to me that just human warmth would be enough to perpetuate feelings of security among others.
Edit: and of course the natural inclination towards empath thrives in a group that practices it.
I told you where i get the unity aspect from. Individual is defined as single, and single is defined as one, which is define as a unit, or unity. Therefore an individual is a unity. Can you imagine the possibility of an individual which is not a unity?
Quoting Echarmion
This is quite clearly incorrect. To understand what a multitude is requires that one understand what as a single, or individual is, because a multitude is made up of singles. But one need not understand what a multitude is in order to understand what a single is. That is why we learn what one is, and even how to count, what two is, and what three is, before we learn what a multitude is. It's only through philosophical inquiry when we ask what's the difference between one and the other numbers, that we compare the concepts of single and multitude.
Quoting Echarmion
Each entity is a single entity, and this is how we can assign a name to it, by recognizing it as an individual. There is no need to understand the meaning of "multiplicity", or "plurality" in order to recognize an entity as an individual, and give it a name and distinguish it form other entities which are recognized as individuals as well. In other words, we recognize things as individuals, and name them as such, long before we learn how to recognize individuals as part of a group. We even learn how to count individuals before we learn how to distinguish members of a group
Quoting Echarmion
From an evolutionary perspective, a single-celled organism came first. Putting aside the question of abiogenesis, or how the first organism came into existence, we need to consider why a single-celled organism evolved into a multi-celled organism. There appears to be no survival advantage in moving from simple to complex, so associating "benefit" with survival cannot be supported, if making one organism out of numerous cells is supposed to be a benefit. Likewise, the benefit of sociability must be something other than survival.
Quoting Echarmion
Quoting Book273
I think you’re right there, even though I find myself resisting and considering the value of “the individual” as an essential element within the group. But of course, let’s call it “the cult of individuality” would perpetuate the idea that the group cannot survive or grow without the genius of the individual.
Because it does serve the egotism of people, that “I’m important”, simply by being. Which is why business can sell ripped jeans for hundreds of dollars. And of course I don’t want to give up my sense of individuality. In someways it’s a sort of pretentious anarchy. Once again it serves the ego.
It is a fascinating issue. It is concentrated or purified romanticism. Both Christ and Socrates are individual heroes. But with artists it's even more concentrated. The product is a singular, nonfungible entity, an irreplaceable personality. The 21st century entrepreneur has a Youtube channel and lives their brand, is their brand. Yeah, it's all paid for by ads, but at the center is the mystique of genius.
This also came to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People Or we can consider Anthem, and watch how the pronoun 'I' is rediscovered by the 'we'-drugged protagonist.
Also it's kind of you to speak up as you do above, just in case someone is feeling persecuted. But I suspect that egoism feeds on that kind of misunderstanding. The last thing the egoist wants is the banality of egoism.
Quoting Book273
Do you think this is the reason people want to fit in so badly or is there something else going on?
Natural egoism arises together with the conception of the Being to existence, that is, the ego is part of what makes us beings of the form, way, way of being, and all perception, meaning, and existence, is felt through our free conscience towards the use of our own egoism.
Does this mean that we are all already destined to do acts only for the sake of self-interest? Yes, however, how each individual will project his nature into existence, its a unique choice of each Being.
Egoism is not a projection of our ideas, concepts, subjections, prepositions, languages, and not even of our consciousness of Being, but rather all of this arises from egoism that comes into existence with existence itself.
The fact that you seem to deny is that the group is only conceived if the individual's will decides to grant it conceptual life. Obviously, if two beings with the same goals and purposes - like 1 and 1, where both complete the same goal - add or subtract 1 - - come together, the tendency is for them to unite. My point is that the root of all interpersonal relationships is not the community, but the individual.
In no way. The only answers I give my attention to are those that really seek (1) or answer my questions differently, or (2) deepen my questions, or (3) refute my question. And until now, the good answers are overshadowing the bad ones.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I am like this in this forum: - I come and go like dead leaves in the wind. There are hiatuses like death and moments of great participation like life.
I probably won't have the same presence I had before for now, as I'm focused on other projects - aka, my second book -
In the afterlife, there will be no marriage. We'll all be well-rounded self-pleasuring hermaphrodites. Or Hamlet jokes something along those lines. I suggest that your 'individual' is a quasi-theological figure or fiction, a repetition of the God image.
In fact we are animals programmed to die, and generally given only half of the species' reproductive technology. If we consider ourselves the divine ape, it's because we can bind time with language, which is essentially a shared institution. It's true that some kind of grand autonomy is the goal for those in our culture at least.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Two beings with the same goals and purposes are basically one being in two bodies. Or are we to take their location in separate bodies terribly seriously? More than just about anything else perhaps, we humans seek to recognize and be recognized, to be understood.
To me it seems that the higher egoist wants to share in an especially pure vision of autonomy. Let's say I think I'm a genius, a soaring eagle. Of course the rabble won't understand me. But the difference between one and none is immense. 'Some are born posthumously.' Born when finally recognized by some tiny, elite, community to come. Life finally lived in the afterlife after all.
I disagree, science disagrees too, but what you're describing is already social. If we have a need to respect others, we are social animals.
Probably by even communicating on this forum we are social animals.
If we did not respect others at all, life would be constant war and conflict every moment, as everywhere we go we have to meet others, bigger and stronger, like in the school playground.
Yes, I think that your idea of ego makes a lot of sense, especially when you say that, 'egoism comes into existence with existence itself'. Here, it can be seen as being like a driving force within the human being, because, of course, you are speaking of humanity, who have evolved with language and reflective consciousness.
I see your perspective as being more in line with the existentialist vision rather than the psychoanalyst. The question which I am left with is whether your perspective is descriptive or prescriptive? We are all striving for our own pathways of existence and does this mean that it is the way it is, or that we should seek to make sure that this can happen?
Perhaps it is a good thing if the rights of the individual can be seen as important rather than the collective needs of groups being seen as primary. Perhaps we have been living in a world which places value on institutions, especially the family. We cannot just assume that we all living in little, happy communities.
Generally, I tend to be on the edge between an existential and psychological viewpoint. If anything I would wonder if Jung's idea of the shadow touches upon the whole area of egoism because he speaks of the way in which socialisation forces us to repress important aspects of ourselves, and that we need to reclaim some of these repressed elements which are a shadow, not inherently bad, but if left unconscious, can be destructive. Perhaps we repress some of our essential egoist elements and this can result in depression and despair, or destruction tendencies.
I wish you the best for writing your new book. I have writing on this site, almost compulsory, since I found it in September. But I cannot imagine that I will do this always, because I will want to get on with my own creative projects as well. But in the meantime, having never been on a forum before, it is a wonderful means of communicating idea with people from many cultures, and it makes a change for me, used to writing in my notebooks.
I agree, but I think that is a need arising from being in a society, not a need to be social in the first place, i.e. it is circumstantial. More fundamentally, we have a drive to be altruistic that, though tempered by the precise social structures and modes we inhabit (which are not conducive to reciprocal altruism), are nonetheless part of what we are (bar some exceptional edge cases). Respect is a manifestation of this: treating others as we would wish to be treated, although the precise treatment (how I wish to be treated in a given circumstance) could be quite arbitrary.
Precisely, we don't all want to be treated in the exact same way. That is where difficulties of social contracts come in.
In speaking of universalisation, we almost getting back to Kant's categorical imperative, of considering the idea of considering the universalition of principles, of everyone doing a certain act, such as lying. However, he was concerned primarily with moral duty and intention as the main principle rather practical consequences.
But your point is valid. So, how are we meant to find practical means to overcome our individual egos battling for attention and importance in the jungle of life? Even if people with common goals unite they may still be minorities, overshadowed by majorities who disagree, as the history of politics show us. And, this year and all the conundrums arising has been the most turbulent ever, in recent history.
I constantly strive to understand the "why" of trying to fit in. It seems to be based primarily on perceived inadequacy of the individual trying to fit it, as if by not fitting in "they will be found out" and then their created world would implode, or some equally horrific result will come about.
My questioning in this area has yielded a multitude of answers that boil down to "because not fitting in is bad, because it means you don't fit in with the group." Clarity here would be appreciated. Being an outlier creates anxiety in everyone except those of us that are ok with it. Not very helpful.
Quoting Book273
You seem to be saying that the problem of fitting in is a problem that the individual has with themselves. That once their inadequacy is revealed their world will implode. Are you saying that you think that of the individual or that the community thinks that?
Quoting Book273
We may have reached a point where traditional ideas, evolutionary ideas, on community and the individual have reached a point of no real relevance. People really don’t feel they need others to survive. What was once done by the community is now done by the government. Add to that the influence of technology and we have a very atomised community. So how can people relate to ideas of the individual and community?
Originally the individual and the community operated on one hand washing the other. The individual contributed to creating a community, the community offered the individual permanence and security to grow, and so on.
It’s possible the inadequacy one feels in not fitting is a very existential moment. Living completely alone with no contact with others over a long period of time does have an effect. We simply need each other, even if we can’t stand each other.
Define interpersonal.