4 ms·

How do you reconcile solidarity, aka consensus with individuality?

CyanBird 5y ago
Through: liberte egalite fraternite People have been doing it since "at least" the French Revolution, I am sure that you could chuck some Pericles speeches in there too
jrsj 5y ago
By accepting a compromise between the two, which seems like the only sane way to do it to me. Otherwise if you go too far in terms of solidarity you end up with totalitarianism (everything is the state & the state is everything)
- endisneigh 5y ago
  The compromise you speak of is simply neither, which is not reconciliation
  - jrsj 5y ago
    It’s sort of a false binary where neither can actually exist, they’re just ideological terms. If you wanted to think about it in a simplified and overly broad way you could model it as a range of 0 to 1 where the actual reality can only ever be a decimal.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
Individuals can very well voluntarily donate to charities without having government goons force to give half of their profits
- WithinReason 5y ago
  This would work great if we were a species of ants
- mordae 5y ago
  You mean "spend some time helping others, without being coerced", right?
mordae 5y ago
Are you asking how to make sure that the society is accommodating to those who are not willing to be accomodating to others? You don't. If the group is too strict, you find another one. Having no borders would sure help. But yeah, global issues need a global consensus. Can't let someone kill the planet for all of us.
BlackFly 5y ago
I think there are too many people that cannot do this reconciliation. This reconciliation is embodied in phrases like, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Solidarity is not conformity. You can be different. There is likely no person on this planet with which you truly have no shared interest, no shared objective, no shared sympathy. Even if you find you identify strongly with your difference with another, the ability to see more fundamental shared interests, objectives and sympathies are the underpinning of things like secularism, freedom of speech, and liberalism in general.
- lucideer 5y ago
  I don't think what you're describing here is individualism though. On the other hand, going a little further with that phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - while it's a benign ideal, looking at applications of that philosophy in practice you often seen it being applied in an inconsistent manner, whereby someone's "right" to say someone infringes on the autonomy of others (essentially a case of competing rights). It's only in cases like that where individualism comes into play.
AstralStorm 5y ago
Pretty easily in fact, with old liberal non-aggression principle. Non-interference unless what an individual is doing obstructs good of others. Includes the expenses if they are high enough. This cannot be defined individually.
- nine_k 5y ago
  Non-aggression is when people who completely disagree don't attack each other. Solidarity is when people who substantially agree on something act in concert. I can't see how one can substitute the other.
- pydry 5y ago
  The non aggression principle cannot work without a shared definition of aggression. And, 9/10 times between mutually aggrieved parties there is no shared definition of aggression. So, no, it's not that easy.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    This is actually where a shitload of disagreement and misunderstanding comes from. Due to peoples different perspectives, people have varying definitions of various terms. This makes discussing heated topics like politics super difficult because the people with different perspectives fundamentally generally don't understand the definitions used by the other and assumptions are made leading to disagreement
    - MereInterest 5y ago
      This is also why defining terms is so important in a conversation. "Robber baron" and "job creator" refer to roughly the same set of people, but have wildly different connotations. Whoever sets the definitions gets to set the framing of the entire conversation that follows. Sometimes, this means that even using the name of a group lean a conversation one way or another. (e.g. The term "Objectivism", Ayn Rand's name for her own philosophy, is accepting that there is something objective about it.) To paraphrase Fred Brooks: "Show me your arguments and conceal your definitions, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your definitions, and I usually won't need your arguments; they'll be obvious." (s/flowcharts/arguments/ and s/tables/definitions/ from the original.)

Through: liberte egalite fraternite People have been doing it since "at least" the French Revolution, I am sure that you could chuck some Pericles speeches in there too

jrsj 5y ago

By accepting a compromise between the two, which seems like the only sane way to do it to me. Otherwise if you go too far in terms of solidarity you end up with totalitarianism (everything is the state & the state is everything)

endisneigh 5y ago
The compromise you speak of is simply neither, which is not reconciliation
- jrsj 5y ago
  It’s sort of a false binary where neither can actually exist, they’re just ideological terms. If you wanted to think about it in a simplified and overly broad way you could model it as a range of 0 to 1 where the actual reality can only ever be a decimal.

jokethrowaway 5y ago

Individuals can very well voluntarily donate to charities without having government goons force to give half of their profits

WithinReason 5y ago
This would work great if we were a species of ants
mordae 5y ago
You mean "spend some time helping others, without being coerced", right?

mordae 5y ago

Are you asking how to make sure that the society is accommodating to those who are not willing to be accomodating to others? You don't. If the group is too strict, you find another one. Having no borders would sure help. But yeah, global issues need a global consensus. Can't let someone kill the planet for all of us.

BlackFly 5y ago

I think there are too many people that cannot do this reconciliation. This reconciliation is embodied in phrases like, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Solidarity is not conformity. You can be different. There is likely no person on this planet with which you truly have no shared interest, no shared objective, no shared sympathy. Even if you find you identify strongly with your difference with another, the ability to see more fundamental shared interests, objectives and sympathies are the underpinning of things like secularism, freedom of speech, and liberalism in general.

lucideer 5y ago
I don't think what you're describing here is individualism though. On the other hand, going a little further with that phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - while it's a benign ideal, looking at applications of that philosophy in practice you often seen it being applied in an inconsistent manner, whereby someone's "right" to say someone infringes on the autonomy of others (essentially a case of competing rights). It's only in cases like that where individualism comes into play.

AstralStorm 5y ago

Pretty easily in fact, with old liberal non-aggression principle. Non-interference unless what an individual is doing obstructs good of others. Includes the expenses if they are high enough. This cannot be defined individually.

nine_k 5y ago
Non-aggression is when people who completely disagree don't attack each other. Solidarity is when people who substantially agree on something act in concert. I can't see how one can substitute the other.
pydry 5y ago
The non aggression principle cannot work without a shared definition of aggression. And, 9/10 times between mutually aggrieved parties there is no shared definition of aggression. So, no, it's not that easy.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  This is actually where a shitload of disagreement and misunderstanding comes from. Due to peoples different perspectives, people have varying definitions of various terms. This makes discussing heated topics like politics super difficult because the people with different perspectives fundamentally generally don't understand the definitions used by the other and assumptions are made leading to disagreement
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    This is also why defining terms is so important in a conversation. "Robber baron" and "job creator" refer to roughly the same set of people, but have wildly different connotations. Whoever sets the definitions gets to set the framing of the entire conversation that follows. Sometimes, this means that even using the name of a group lean a conversation one way or another. (e.g. The term "Objectivism", Ayn Rand's name for her own philosophy, is accepting that there is something objective about it.) To paraphrase Fred Brooks: "Show me your arguments and conceal your definitions, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your definitions, and I usually won't need your arguments; they'll be obvious." (s/flowcharts/arguments/ and s/tables/definitions/ from the original.)