Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Is The Age Of Individualism Coming To An End?

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 19


Socialism/Marxism/Collectivism is the greatest enemy of individual liberty so far in history. Here's how to defeat it: ignore politics until all politicians have to find real, i.e., honest, jobs if they want to eat. Simple as that:)


Haven't seen you around in awhile, good to hear from you.  Nice rebuttal, I'd left out the pedophiles part, which I assume you hinting at a religious overture more so than a political one otherwise I'd be at a loss to it's reference.


They say in the west we are illogical and aren't philosophical and suck in the arts....well if you can't beat em join em right?


Mmm I love this true self awareness.


Hmm I love your insight on things sir I'll look that book up and order it.


If globalism will moderate the extremes then individualism is lost.


That's a hell of a outlook and I look at life in the same light, but sadly we are the few versus the many.


An individual who isn't distracted enables the efficiency of the team?


I hang out in the park to appreciate the complexity of nature, the serenity enables me to focus on the complexity of figuring out puzzles not my cell phone.


Individualism has got it's head out of it's a$$, they've finally woke up and stood up.


Exclusionary groups.  You can't have it both ways.  An individualist can see the painting on the wall because the view isn't obstructed by being stuck in the crowd.  You can paint all the pictures that you want but it will never hide the underlying problems.


I do not think that I agree with that. I suspect that the  large proportion of cooperative followers will still comply with the few practical leaders. The despotic leaders will be opposed by the independent and reasoning few. Throughout human history about 5% of the population provided the leadership for
95 % of the citezenry. The problem is not with the leaders or followers per se it is the inconsistencies that are apparent in the mental abstractions of philosophies in general and with philosophies special needs children, religion and politics in particular who tend to be more involved with head butting and insult than debating and moderating the extremists negotiating enlightened self interests and bargaining cooperatively.
I think that globalism is more of an economic position. The extreme positions resolve issues through warfare. The moderate position negotiates trade. Global
perspectives homogenize cultures, science, technology, art , music and entertainment, food, travel and general tolerance towards others does homogenize the differences and extreme positions  as well, I think. To be stubbornly independent and isolated from the world at large is actually detrimental to the wellbeing of only the atavistic as the rest of Mankind wants to  be securely comfortable,  healthy,  fed and entertained.  The isolated as ever tend to be isolated or self isolating, insecure, fearful, angry and intolerant.
Sometimes we all have to give a little bit more and obstruct a bit less to get what we desire.
As this debate is really a philosophical personal perspective,  I think the best answer is unknowable. To you philosophies may have merit to me it is interesting, to another philosophy might be a game plan and to another a series of equivocations. To me philosophy is a broken compass in the hand of one looking for answers when lost in the mental wilderness. I just go my own way and do things as I choose and act as I think serves me best and learn what leads to successes by experiencing some failures and making many mistakes. Thought and beliefs do not make better people, practical actions make people better.


That's a lot of ground you've laid out there. Being a non conformist myself I think there is some subjective differences between individualism and non conformity.  Non conformist get labeled much more offensively then individualist, which sometime give non conformist a bad label.  Individualist are often described as a harmless odd bird who doesn't bother anybody, a non conformist who goes off the fringes is often described as someone his neighbors claim it was just a matter of time before we knew they'd become unhinged. 


I am also a non conformist. I do not fit in a box and I also know we get labeled unfairly. But we need different thinking people in this world to change things.
I realize I covered a lot of ground in what I wrote but I tried to do it with out writing a book. Sorry if it looked confusing and mucked up.


I'm not sure if there ever WAS an age of individualism, rather than a sterotype of such.


we tried pretty hard for it here in the US. and for years, available land out west made that possible. we've run out of other people's lands to take and now have to grow up and live in a society again


I think we should have a total collective society like the U.S.S.R circa 1936-38, a complete and perfect utopia.


I see individualism as a choice with perhaps equal standing beside the desire for the ultimate team: the collective.  The ambiguous reasoning behind such choices exists in the political realm, affecting us all and sometimes bringing us into confrontations, because just these simple descriptions of where we stand as either individuals or teammates tends to affect an entire set of attitudes regarding the general political scene itself.
I see individualism as the core of the American system, but can sometimes bring arguments that will include various areas where teamwork is necessary and accepted by those involved.  Working in a crew is one example, or as part of a team on some project, or even as a member of a team in sports.  But these do not represent an interest in the collective.  These are temporary displays of unity, of the need for such teamwork that can be enjoyable despite the work involved.
But the collective is a way of life in which this teamwork continues on and off the field, so to speak.  The individual, enjoying individualism, prefers the benefit of leaving the crew after the work is done or a night out with the boys comes to an end.  When the individualist separates from the others, he returns to his own life, his own habits, his own decorations, his own structure that is unaffected by a collaboration other than what he accepts, and expects, from those in his family.  The Individualist includes his family as part of his individualism, which is the extent to which he might go while linking his private life to a collection of other individuals.
The extreme difference between the two systems might be in the choice to participate compared to the absolute expectation of unity for the sake of sharing the fruits of collective labors.  The end can sometimes appear similar between the two, such as when crews work together on a mission, but it is in the individual lifestyles enjoyed when apart from the team where the benefits of individualism is found.  The incentive of the individual, for the most part, is not always to share the fruits of collective labors, but to earn an individual wage and return home to enjoy the fruits of his own work.  Joining a sports team, however, might show something akin to the collective, and the win or loss is definitely shared by each member of the team, but this is still part of a choice made by each member to belong and is not intended to carry on into the private lives of each.  The choice to join is where the benefit actually is, which could never be allowed in a system that enforces the collective to create the larger machine.
I prefer a system in which the parts of the machine appear because niches are filled for individual purposes, such as the chance to earn money and the opportunity to find various products because of this incentive.  When the niches are created by a government, say, then filling them would require enforcement when the collective is of the greatest concern.  Individualists will become the parts of the whole because they will fit into the system for their own benefits, without too much concern for the overall benefit of a harmoniously operating structure that requires them.  This requirement, to the individual, simply creates the niche that provides a personal opportunity, and the rewards would then be shared with the largest collection of others the individualist accepts during his private existence.  He shares his rewards with his family.
The collective, or a more socialist or communist type of system, is sometimes preferred due to an idealistic way of viewing the possibilities.  The fantasy of social harmony sometimes clouds over the harsher vision reality will always present, but reality is much firmer and stronger than the fluffy mists of dreams.  Because of our individual differences, our needs will be thusly affected, so marching arm in arm towards a field for the purpose of sharing the fruits of our labors may end up frustrating when our inescapable individualism rears its more natural head.  If one works harder, he expects to earn more.  If one lays down a bit too much, he should receive much less.  And, because we are not machines stamped out in factories, there will always be those differences in output and performance, and sharing equally within the collective usually ends up more unfair than the fantasy originally portrayed.
If there are displays in films or various venues that seem to show the benefits of working in teams built out of people melted together into singular bodies rather than as individuals, we must also realize there are those whose prime incentive is to indoctrinate.  This is not a conspiracy theory, but has always been a part of the creations within the arts, where socialist types will always provide creations that prove the benefits of a more collective lifestyle.  Their particular ideologies will always invade their work, and the arts are among the greatest means by which such messages can be spread out across the land.  A great film, with fine actors, can include the much better situation when government has control over the individual in some cases.  The Grapes of Wrath, for one example, is a great film with fine actors, but slips in the subtleties of the horrors experienced by pickers working for private owners of orchards---the socialist's example of individualist greed---, who then find their greatest relief in the finely run operations controlled by government.  More fun than work is displayed when the scenes cut to these more controlled operations, and it was obvious which side of the political spectrum was behind the development of the story and the film that was shot thereafter.
The individualist lives with the clear vision of reality around him, without any fantasy to soften the blows, and he adjusts to these harsher aspects of life while he finds his periods of contentment.  The collectivist begins with the acceptance of the idealistic fantasy as portrayed, believing what he has been told through clever indoctrination.  But reality will affect each in the normal passing of time.  Reality, which always exists behind the cloud of fantasy, will be handled more easily by those who always knew it was there than by those who will end up shocked when their protective bubble bursts.....and it always will.


Well... I, for one am one for all.

Posts: 19

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Is The Age Of Individualism Coming To An End?

Similar topics in this forum