6 ms·

The core proposition of individualism is that an individual has rights and value, irrespective of their group identity, and therefore should be judged based on

The core proposition of individualism is that an individual has rights and value, irrespective of their group identity, and therefore should be judged based on their ideas, their conduct and their personal characteristics. This has strong connection to the philosophical foundations of Science where ideas should be judged on their merits and not on the speaker or their group identity and capitalism where individual rights extend to property. The default position of humanity is not individualism by the way, but rather group identity. Historically since time immemorial, rewards, guilt, punishment, rights (etc.) were applied at a group level. This resulted, predictably, in egregious crimes inflicted on huge swaths of people because of their group membership. It's dismaying that there is a huge segment of academia that wants to revert to this more 'natural' state. It's dismaying to see arguments and ideas being dismissed based on the group identity of speaker in academia and mainstream culture. It's dismaying to see academia and mainstream culture level guilt on individuals because of their (immutable) group identity. Individualism was one of the most radical ideas in the history of humanity that ushered our modern civilization. We lose it at our peril.

dfilppi 6y ago
Commies got to be commies
question000 6y ago
Individualism is whatever I say it is.
- specialist 6y ago
  The Agile Philosophy.
smt88 6y ago
> individual has rights and value, irrespective of their group identity Individuals should have rights/value irrespective of group identity. However, individual rights don't exist without a group in general. If you are the only living human, the concept of rights is meaningless to you in general. I live in the US, so my rights are (supposed to be) protected by the state, in case anyone wants to take them from me. If my neighbor decides I don't have the right to live anymore and murders me, then I lost my right to live. I only have the rights that everyone around me agrees to let me keep. > It's dismaying that there is a huge segment of academia that wants to revert to this more 'natural' state. The opposite is true. Academia is where we get much of the evidence that socially-constructed groups (based on religion, gender, race, etc.) are not biological and should not be the basis for granting value and rights.
- blueflow 6y ago
  Race is not biological? Did i get taxonomy wrong?
  - dwb 6y ago
    Not necessarily or directly, no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
    - blueflow 6y ago
      Ah, i didn't realize people in the anglosphere use it as a social category now. In German language, dog breeds are called with the same word that can also be used on humans ("Hunderasse", "Rasse"), so i always understood it as a biological/taxonomical thing.
      - disposekinetics 6y ago
        Just like gender it used to mean that, but now we have to pretend it has always meant something else.
        dwb 6y ago
        I have never heard of anyone claiming that modern definitions of these terms should be literally projected back into the past - only that we can analyse the past with current thought on these matters, which seems completely reasonable to me.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  If you live in the US, then your rights are supposed to be inherent and inalienable. The question then isn’t whether you have the rights, but whether someone is violating those rights (which you still possess) or you have “given them up” by violating the rights of another. In a narrow practical sense, this is equivalent to “those around you deciding what rights you have.” In an ethical sense, it isn’t. If people believe rights stem from the group then the group is ethically fine in deciding you don’t have those rights and acting accordingly. If rights are inherent to the individual then while the group may still violate those rights, it both remains a violation and is not ethically sound. This difference makes it far easier in the former case for groups to violate the rights of individuals and other groups. Then in a broader practical sense, these are not equivalent ideas. Encouraging the belief that rights are inherent is in the best interests of those who do not want those rights violated.
silicon2401 6y ago
Beautifully worded. Western society's recent move away from individualism is probably one of the biggest recent societal tragedies, IMO.
andrepd 6y ago
I'll paraphrase some of my other comment to explain why I think that "individualism" is somewhat of a red herring. Unless you live in a self-sufficient homestead in the middle of a forest, there's no such thing as a "self-made man". Take Amazon for instance: they benefit from roads and infrastructure. But they also benefit from things like police and courts to protect their private property, just like they rely on a workforce capable of meeting their demands. Ultimately, they also benefit from a stable society and mostly wealthy enough population to afford their products! And finally, one can say that they benefit from the work of the people who invented the Internet, who invented computers, who made the American Revolution, the ancient Greek philosophers and the medieval mathematicians and Copernicus and Galileo and Newton, in short: directly or indirectly from the combined work of every single human being which lived and has ever lived. That's what's hidden behind the simple word "society". And that's why no person is "self-made". For this, Amazon reaps enormous profit. They need to pay what's due: they owe a debt to society, for it was society that enabled their profit. In a more practical sense, individualism is often found in practice to be pulled as a justification for privatising our economic output in the hands of a lucky few, and for ever-greater concentrations of wealth and an unjust distribution of duties and rewards. I'm suspicious of it on that count as well.
- freebreakfast 6y ago
  It seems to be popular to attack the "self-made man" idea as of late, but these attacks seem to be addressing the idea as "man in isolation" or "man with absolutely nothing." This runs in contrast to what the idea originally meant. Frederick Douglass considered[0], "Self-made men ... are what they are, without the aid of any of the favoring conditions by which other men usually rise in the world and achieve great results." For Douglass, the self-made man lacked "favoring conditions by which other men usually rise." This doesn't mean the self-made man cannot rely on that which is available to everyone in a given society (e.g., courts, roads, existing scientific knowledge, etc.). It simply means the self-made man is not one privileged over others. This being so, I would reason that your post doesn't really address the idea of the "self-made man." I also think the evaluation of Amazon is unfair. It is presented as Amazon taking value from society and never giving back. But what value has Amazon given in return to people? It is often more convenient to shop on Amazon. It offers a greater selection of products than local stores. It often offers lower prices. It also provides reviews to aid decision making. So, to frame it as Amazon only taking and never giving back is an unfair criticism. Does Amazon take more than it gives? Possibly. That's a difficult discussion though. As for individualism, yes it can definitely be abused. But, that alone is not sufficient grounds to reject the idea--particularly when one looks the benefits gained as described in the parent to your post. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Men

dfilppi 6y ago

Commies got to be commies

question000 6y ago

Individualism is whatever I say it is.

specialist 6y ago
The Agile Philosophy.

smt88 6y ago

> individual has rights and value, irrespective of their group identity Individuals should have rights/value irrespective of group identity. However, individual rights don't exist without a group in general. If you are the only living human, the concept of rights is meaningless to you in general. I live in the US, so my rights are (supposed to be) protected by the state, in case anyone wants to take them from me. If my neighbor decides I don't have the right to live anymore and murders me, then I lost my right to live. I only have the rights that everyone around me agrees to let me keep. > It's dismaying that there is a huge segment of academia that wants to revert to this more 'natural' state. The opposite is true. Academia is where we get much of the evidence that socially-constructed groups (based on religion, gender, race, etc.) are not biological and should not be the basis for granting value and rights.

blueflow 6y ago
Race is not biological? Did i get taxonomy wrong?
- dwb 6y ago
  Not necessarily or directly, no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
  - blueflow 6y ago
    Ah, i didn't realize people in the anglosphere use it as a social category now. In German language, dog breeds are called with the same word that can also be used on humans ("Hunderasse", "Rasse"), so i always understood it as a biological/taxonomical thing.
    - disposekinetics 6y ago
      Just like gender it used to mean that, but now we have to pretend it has always meant something else.
      - dwb 6y ago
        I have never heard of anyone claiming that modern definitions of these terms should be literally projected back into the past - only that we can analyse the past with current thought on these matters, which seems completely reasonable to me.
cgriswald 6y ago
If you live in the US, then your rights are supposed to be inherent and inalienable. The question then isn’t whether you have the rights, but whether someone is violating those rights (which you still possess) or you have “given them up” by violating the rights of another. In a narrow practical sense, this is equivalent to “those around you deciding what rights you have.” In an ethical sense, it isn’t. If people believe rights stem from the group then the group is ethically fine in deciding you don’t have those rights and acting accordingly. If rights are inherent to the individual then while the group may still violate those rights, it both remains a violation and is not ethically sound. This difference makes it far easier in the former case for groups to violate the rights of individuals and other groups. Then in a broader practical sense, these are not equivalent ideas. Encouraging the belief that rights are inherent is in the best interests of those who do not want those rights violated.

silicon2401 6y ago

Beautifully worded. Western society's recent move away from individualism is probably one of the biggest recent societal tragedies, IMO.

andrepd 6y ago

I'll paraphrase some of my other comment to explain why I think that "individualism" is somewhat of a red herring. Unless you live in a self-sufficient homestead in the middle of a forest, there's no such thing as a "self-made man". Take Amazon for instance: they benefit from roads and infrastructure. But they also benefit from things like police and courts to protect their private property, just like they rely on a workforce capable of meeting their demands. Ultimately, they also benefit from a stable society and mostly wealthy enough population to afford their products! And finally, one can say that they benefit from the work of the people who invented the Internet, who invented computers, who made the American Revolution, the ancient Greek philosophers and the medieval mathematicians and Copernicus and Galileo and Newton, in short: directly or indirectly from the combined work of every single human being which lived and has ever lived. That's what's hidden behind the simple word "society". And that's why no person is "self-made". For this, Amazon reaps enormous profit. They need to pay what's due: they owe a debt to society, for it was society that enabled their profit. In a more practical sense, individualism is often found in practice to be pulled as a justification for privatising our economic output in the hands of a lucky few, and for ever-greater concentrations of wealth and an unjust distribution of duties and rewards. I'm suspicious of it on that count as well.

freebreakfast 6y ago
It seems to be popular to attack the "self-made man" idea as of late, but these attacks seem to be addressing the idea as "man in isolation" or "man with absolutely nothing." This runs in contrast to what the idea originally meant. Frederick Douglass considered[0], "Self-made men ... are what they are, without the aid of any of the favoring conditions by which other men usually rise in the world and achieve great results." For Douglass, the self-made man lacked "favoring conditions by which other men usually rise." This doesn't mean the self-made man cannot rely on that which is available to everyone in a given society (e.g., courts, roads, existing scientific knowledge, etc.). It simply means the self-made man is not one privileged over others. This being so, I would reason that your post doesn't really address the idea of the "self-made man." I also think the evaluation of Amazon is unfair. It is presented as Amazon taking value from society and never giving back. But what value has Amazon given in return to people? It is often more convenient to shop on Amazon. It offers a greater selection of products than local stores. It often offers lower prices. It also provides reviews to aid decision making. So, to frame it as Amazon only taking and never giving back is an unfair criticism. Does Amazon take more than it gives? Possibly. That's a difficult discussion though. As for individualism, yes it can definitely be abused. But, that alone is not sufficient grounds to reject the idea--particularly when one looks the benefits gained as described in the parent to your post. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Men