3 ms·

>There don't seem to be any circumstances in which "Individualism" is superior to "Cooperation" or "Collectivism" (and that in of itself I believe is a false di

>There don't seem to be any circumstances in which "Individualism" is superior to "Cooperation" or "Collectivism" (and that in of itself I believe is a false dichotomy to begin with as there are situations in which individualism is necessary to maintain overall collectivism) unless you ignore the fact that the individual is benefiting from past "Collectivist" actions. It depends what you mean by Individualism. I think a good and often used definition of individualism is that individuals have inherent value and inherent rights. This notion seems like a deeply valuable part of modern ethics and has made our society stronger. Individualism is the basis for concepts like human rights. At least from my perspective so much of the battle between the conservatives and the progressives is that the conservatives take a traditionalist view that individuals must subsume their will and happiness to the expectations of society; Often the traditional expectations of society. Whereas progressives and the left argue that individuals have an inherent right to live their lives the way they want assuming they aren't hurting anyone else. For instance gay rights is fundamentally built on individualist values, traditional western society expects gay people to not express themselves, whereas an individualist would say gay people have an inherent right to express themselves and social expectation be damned.

malandrew 6y ago
The definition of conservatism I like is that systems that produce good things are very hard to create and build and very easy to destroy. Conservatism is just wanted to protect things that work. Where things go off the rails is when conservatives don’t understand why the system works the way it does and confuses it to be all good because it produces good outcomes. Where opponents of conservatism (revolutionaries?) go off the rails is that they only see the bad in the current system and have failed to understand what the current system was optimized for doing well. If you don’t understand what an existing system does well, then you lack the qualifications to propose a new system since the new system won’t fix what is broken while simultaneously preserving what is working well. In either case, whether you are in favor of an existing system or opposed to it, you need to dig deep and reflect on why things are done the way they are because you may be throwing out a kernel of brilliant insight and not know it or you may be correct about thinking that you’re dealing with an onion in the varnish. https://wiki.c2.com/?OnionInTheVarnish https://wiki.c2.com/?OnionInTheVarnish https://wiki.c2.com/?OldRulesWithForgottenReasons https://wiki.c2.com/?OldRulesWithForgottenReasons
- EthanHeilman 6y ago
  I think that definition of conservatism is very generous to conservatives since we often see people who identify themselves as conservatives attempting to change society rather than merely freeze it as it is. However I recognize that figures like G. K. Chesterton have expressed ideas[0] that meet you definition of conservatism: "So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark." [0] >In either case, whether you are in favor of an existing system or opposed to it, you need to dig deep and reflect on why things are done the way they are because you may be throwing out a kernel of brilliant insight and not know it or you may be correct about thinking that you’re dealing with an onion in the varnish. Strong agree. It is unfortunate that so much is cast as being for or against an existing system. We should all want to improve the world. History has shown that resisting all change just results in turning a living system into a decaying one. On the other hand attempting to replace a living system with wholly new living system almost always results in second system syndrome [1]. We should reject both of these approaches and ask what sort of society do we wish to have and how might we get from here to there. From where I sit the conservative answer to that is that they want a society which enforces strict hierarchies such that each person's role and place is society is pre-determined for them along traditional lines: the peasants work on farms or factories, families ruled by patriarchs, an elite ruling class, everyone obeys the church in their sexual life etc... The traditionalism that the conservatives seek is not the present state of our society, but rather their imagined fantasy of the past. Whereas the society I would like is one is which each individual is given the support to be the best person they can be __as defined by that individual__ (of course within the limits of the resources of the society and such that they aren't harming others). I see the current political divide in the US as a battle between those who wish to move the world closer toward traditionalist morality (conservatives) and those who wish to move the world toward an individualist morality (progressives). [0]: Heretics by GK Chesterton https://www.gutenberg.org/files/470/470-h/470-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/470/470-h/470-h.htm [1]: Second System Effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect
  - 6y ago

malandrew 6y ago

The definition of conservatism I like is that systems that produce good things are very hard to create and build and very easy to destroy. Conservatism is just wanted to protect things that work. Where things go off the rails is when conservatives don’t understand why the system works the way it does and confuses it to be all good because it produces good outcomes. Where opponents of conservatism (revolutionaries?) go off the rails is that they only see the bad in the current system and have failed to understand what the current system was optimized for doing well. If you don’t understand what an existing system does well, then you lack the qualifications to propose a new system since the new system won’t fix what is broken while simultaneously preserving what is working well. In either case, whether you are in favor of an existing system or opposed to it, you need to dig deep and reflect on why things are done the way they are because you may be throwing out a kernel of brilliant insight and not know it or you may be correct about thinking that you’re dealing with an onion in the varnish. https://wiki.c2.com/?OnionInTheVarnish https://wiki.c2.com/?OnionInTheVarnish https://wiki.c2.com/?OldRulesWithForgottenReasons https://wiki.c2.com/?OldRulesWithForgottenReasons

EthanHeilman 6y ago
I think that definition of conservatism is very generous to conservatives since we often see people who identify themselves as conservatives attempting to change society rather than merely freeze it as it is. However I recognize that figures like G. K. Chesterton have expressed ideas[0] that meet you definition of conservatism: "So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark." [0] >In either case, whether you are in favor of an existing system or opposed to it, you need to dig deep and reflect on why things are done the way they are because you may be throwing out a kernel of brilliant insight and not know it or you may be correct about thinking that you’re dealing with an onion in the varnish. Strong agree. It is unfortunate that so much is cast as being for or against an existing system. We should all want to improve the world. History has shown that resisting all change just results in turning a living system into a decaying one. On the other hand attempting to replace a living system with wholly new living system almost always results in second system syndrome [1]. We should reject both of these approaches and ask what sort of society do we wish to have and how might we get from here to there. From where I sit the conservative answer to that is that they want a society which enforces strict hierarchies such that each person's role and place is society is pre-determined for them along traditional lines: the peasants work on farms or factories, families ruled by patriarchs, an elite ruling class, everyone obeys the church in their sexual life etc... The traditionalism that the conservatives seek is not the present state of our society, but rather their imagined fantasy of the past. Whereas the society I would like is one is which each individual is given the support to be the best person they can be __as defined by that individual__ (of course within the limits of the resources of the society and such that they aren't harming others). I see the current political divide in the US as a battle between those who wish to move the world closer toward traditionalist morality (conservatives) and those who wish to move the world toward an individualist morality (progressives). [0]: Heretics by GK Chesterton https://www.gutenberg.org/files/470/470-h/470-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/470/470-h/470-h.htm [1]: Second System Effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect
- 6y ago