6 ms·

We ought to abandon an individualistic view of life. We are not individuals, but persons who are born into society, into social relations, molded by them, made

We ought to abandon an individualistic view of life. We are not individuals, but persons who are born into society, into social relations, molded by them, made in their image. Hierarchy and power are not meant to be fashioned into instruments for dominating another, but for multiplying the good. When common truth is seen for what it is, a common good, debate ceases to be an act of violence and domination. It takes on a different meaning, a different purpose, namely, the truth and the arrival at it for the common good of the participants.

pixelatedindex 2y ago
> We are not individuals, but persons who are born into society, into social relations, molded by them, made in their image. I think this is a fundamental difference between the East and the West. It’s also why in situations like the pandemic, the East can band together with less friction whereas places like the US fall apart completely. There are few reasons for westerners to rally toward a cause in unison - the last time it happened was during the civil rights movement. Hard to imagine people coming together like that today.
- mikewarot 2y ago
  I hear what you're saying. That individualism in the west makes us far less likely to engage in activities that are beneficial to all of society at some cost to ourselves. It can seem like that's true based on the view that those in authority in the United States and elsewhere had correct information, and disseminated it as soon as they could. However, the authorities in the US and in other countries did NOT properly use their authority, and acted in a manner that betrayed that trust. We in the West are far less trusting of authority, and this was reinforced by their failures during that public health emergency. Trusting completely in Authority was the main thing we fought against in WWII. "Just following orders" isn't a valid excuse for war crimes. On the smaller scale, we midwesterners, at least, band together to help each other out during the Winters when things get snowed in, and to recover from other urgent situations, it's deep in our DNA.
  - unclebucknasty 2y ago
    The individualism of the West is largely a myth, excepting perhaps early pioneer days. The West's social organization is just tribal vs national. For instance, all of U.S. politics fits neatly into just two political parties. And, ironically, the idea of individualism itself is a prominent membership hook for one of the two binary tribes.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      Agree with a few caveats. In suburbia some folks prefer to go buy a tool, extra vehicle(s), or call family far away than knock on the doors of a few neighbors. Of course even that is mostly an illusion since suburbia is subsidized by food from rural communities and income from rich clusters. It's also kind of unhealthy to live such atomized lives, at least for many people. Alone time is important to me, yet I've come around to appreciating friendly community of all kinds.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      > For instance, all of U.S. politics fits neatly into just two political parties. Except ... it doesn't. There are American Marxists. There are anarcho-capitalist libertarians. There are ethno-Christian nationalists. And more ... If it appears to "fit" into two political parties, that has more to do with what aspects of American politics appears in whatever media you see, which in turn reflects both the formal powers of those two parties, and their informal power (e.g. the Overton window).
      - unclebucknasty 2y ago
        >Except ... it doesn't. I take your point, but "all" in my comment wasn't intended to be taken literally. In fact, your list could've actually been much longer, but the point is that all of these parties must find a way to express their preferences through one of the two predominant parties—or not at all. >If it appears to "fit" into two political parties, that has more to do with what aspects of American politics appears in whatever media you see, which in turn reflects both the formal powers of those two parties In practice, it actually does fit into two political parties, by definition and for exactly the reason you mentioned: they are the only two parties with the formal power to compel the media to express their will. How did that come about in a nation that supposedly embraces individualism? I didn't intend to say that there are no individualistic beliefs in the U.S. I'm saying the idea that individualism is a dominant or defining characteristic of the U.S. in any practical sense is largely a myth. The overwhelming majority of Americans are happy to fit themselves into one of two political parties. That includes the party that fancies itself one of "rugged individuals", while its members adopt a laundry list of exactly the same beliefs.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >There are few reasons for westerners to rally toward a cause in unison Disagree. It's just as advantageous for the West to rally together as it is for the East. But, there are those who are purposely dividing us for their own gain.
- glitchc 2y ago
  Except the West was able to develop a cure (multiple actually) whereas the East struggled. Sure we had some issues roling the vaccines out initially, but we resolved those pretty quickly. Not only that, we resolved supply shortages to the point where we could guarantee that everyone received multiple doses. In the end, the West had far fewer mortalities compared to the East, so I'll take the West's way of doing things any day of the week.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Except the West was able to develop a cure (multiple actually) whereas the East struggled. No, we weren't. The vaccines aren't cures, they are prophylactics that mitigate the severity of symptoms. (Also, several were developed in the East.)
    - glitchc 2y ago
      There's some strong delusion equating a vaccine to a prophylactic. Going from high mortality to a minor cold is a huge win for any drug, vaccine or otherwise. Additionally that's how vaccines work. You still get sick but the illness is minor. They're not a force field. > (Also, several were developed in the East.) Oh? Do tell about their efficacy.
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        A prophylactic is an advance intervention that prevents or mitigates the severity of disease. Vaccines in general, and all COVID vaccines, are prophylactics. Vaccines could be cures as well, but COVID vaccines are not. Sufficient distribution of prophylactics for infectious disease can achieve eradication which, while distinct from a cure, is as good or better, but COVID vaccines haven't done that.
        glitchc 2y ago
        You seem to be confusing treatments with vaccines by lumping them under the same broad definition. A vaccine must be taken prior to contracting the disease, and will not work if taken after. This is exactly how COVID vaccines behave, therefore they are vaccines. Now whether a vaccine is effective or not is a separate, almost orthogonal, dimension for consideration. No single vaccine is 100% effective, so we will always have certain % of cases where vaccines did not prevent the spread of infection and resulting adverse outcomes.
- BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  Current electrons in France are an example. People who hate reach other work together to account a majority of the extreme right. This will stay in place for one more day, staying from Monday we will have the usual political mess.
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  We have to be careful here. Individualism is not the same thing as respect for person. Individualism is a recent development in the West, specifically a tenet of liberalism in the tradition of Hobbes, Locke, and Mill. The liberal tradition cannot be understood completely except as a Christian heresy as it takes a properly Christian anthropology and distorts it by, in this case, exaggeration. So, in this case, while Christianity elevates the human person by recognizing his dignity as a rational and free agent, liberalism atomizes persons in a manner that effectively destroys or distorts their social nature, and in doing so, diminishes their humanity (Aristotle once famously said that a man who does not need society is either a beast or a god; I have my opinion about which tends to characterize our relationships today, and which tends to characterize our opinions of ourselves.) Now, the East does not have this Christian respect for persons. Indeed, it tends toward the opposite error of subordinating the person to society and instrumentalizing persons and making them expendable for the "greater good". We see something like this in the old pagan societies in the West as well (though, as we often see, this "greater good" is a tyranny). In the traditional, pre-liberal Christian vision, still taught by the Catholic Church, there is a simultaneous recognition and respect for persons, and a recognition of Man's social nature and the common good which precedes him and toward which he has a moral duty. We are born into societies (the family is the first and most important society from which the entire tapestry of mankind is woven). And it is the common good: it isn't the "greater good" of society that permits the sacrifice of others, but a good held in common, and also by which many goods are had, including things like private property, which follows from the common good (liberalism has it exactly backwards, because it conceives private property as prior and proper to the individual first, and the common good as something grudgingly ceded by individuals for common benefit).

pixelatedindex 2y ago

> We are not individuals, but persons who are born into society, into social relations, molded by them, made in their image. I think this is a fundamental difference between the East and the West. It’s also why in situations like the pandemic, the East can band together with less friction whereas places like the US fall apart completely. There are few reasons for westerners to rally toward a cause in unison - the last time it happened was during the civil rights movement. Hard to imagine people coming together like that today.

mikewarot 2y ago
I hear what you're saying. That individualism in the west makes us far less likely to engage in activities that are beneficial to all of society at some cost to ourselves. It can seem like that's true based on the view that those in authority in the United States and elsewhere had correct information, and disseminated it as soon as they could. However, the authorities in the US and in other countries did NOT properly use their authority, and acted in a manner that betrayed that trust. We in the West are far less trusting of authority, and this was reinforced by their failures during that public health emergency. Trusting completely in Authority was the main thing we fought against in WWII. "Just following orders" isn't a valid excuse for war crimes. On the smaller scale, we midwesterners, at least, band together to help each other out during the Winters when things get snowed in, and to recover from other urgent situations, it's deep in our DNA.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  The individualism of the West is largely a myth, excepting perhaps early pioneer days. The West's social organization is just tribal vs national. For instance, all of U.S. politics fits neatly into just two political parties. And, ironically, the idea of individualism itself is a prominent membership hook for one of the two binary tribes.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    Agree with a few caveats. In suburbia some folks prefer to go buy a tool, extra vehicle(s), or call family far away than knock on the doors of a few neighbors. Of course even that is mostly an illusion since suburbia is subsidized by food from rural communities and income from rich clusters. It's also kind of unhealthy to live such atomized lives, at least for many people. Alone time is important to me, yet I've come around to appreciating friendly community of all kinds.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    > For instance, all of U.S. politics fits neatly into just two political parties. Except ... it doesn't. There are American Marxists. There are anarcho-capitalist libertarians. There are ethno-Christian nationalists. And more ... If it appears to "fit" into two political parties, that has more to do with what aspects of American politics appears in whatever media you see, which in turn reflects both the formal powers of those two parties, and their informal power (e.g. the Overton window).
    - unclebucknasty 2y ago
      >Except ... it doesn't. I take your point, but "all" in my comment wasn't intended to be taken literally. In fact, your list could've actually been much longer, but the point is that all of these parties must find a way to express their preferences through one of the two predominant parties—or not at all. >If it appears to "fit" into two political parties, that has more to do with what aspects of American politics appears in whatever media you see, which in turn reflects both the formal powers of those two parties In practice, it actually does fit into two political parties, by definition and for exactly the reason you mentioned: they are the only two parties with the formal power to compel the media to express their will. How did that come about in a nation that supposedly embraces individualism? I didn't intend to say that there are no individualistic beliefs in the U.S. I'm saying the idea that individualism is a dominant or defining characteristic of the U.S. in any practical sense is largely a myth. The overwhelming majority of Americans are happy to fit themselves into one of two political parties. That includes the party that fancies itself one of "rugged individuals", while its members adopt a laundry list of exactly the same beliefs.
unclebucknasty 2y ago
>There are few reasons for westerners to rally toward a cause in unison Disagree. It's just as advantageous for the West to rally together as it is for the East. But, there are those who are purposely dividing us for their own gain.
glitchc 2y ago
Except the West was able to develop a cure (multiple actually) whereas the East struggled. Sure we had some issues roling the vaccines out initially, but we resolved those pretty quickly. Not only that, we resolved supply shortages to the point where we could guarantee that everyone received multiple doses. In the end, the West had far fewer mortalities compared to the East, so I'll take the West's way of doing things any day of the week.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Except the West was able to develop a cure (multiple actually) whereas the East struggled. No, we weren't. The vaccines aren't cures, they are prophylactics that mitigate the severity of symptoms. (Also, several were developed in the East.)
  - glitchc 2y ago
    There's some strong delusion equating a vaccine to a prophylactic. Going from high mortality to a minor cold is a huge win for any drug, vaccine or otherwise. Additionally that's how vaccines work. You still get sick but the illness is minor. They're not a force field. > (Also, several were developed in the East.) Oh? Do tell about their efficacy.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      A prophylactic is an advance intervention that prevents or mitigates the severity of disease. Vaccines in general, and all COVID vaccines, are prophylactics. Vaccines could be cures as well, but COVID vaccines are not. Sufficient distribution of prophylactics for infectious disease can achieve eradication which, while distinct from a cure, is as good or better, but COVID vaccines haven't done that.
      - glitchc 2y ago
        You seem to be confusing treatments with vaccines by lumping them under the same broad definition. A vaccine must be taken prior to contracting the disease, and will not work if taken after. This is exactly how COVID vaccines behave, therefore they are vaccines. Now whether a vaccine is effective or not is a separate, almost orthogonal, dimension for consideration. No single vaccine is 100% effective, so we will always have certain % of cases where vaccines did not prevent the spread of infection and resulting adverse outcomes.
BrandoElFollito 2y ago
Current electrons in France are an example. People who hate reach other work together to account a majority of the extreme right. This will stay in place for one more day, staying from Monday we will have the usual political mess.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
We have to be careful here. Individualism is not the same thing as respect for person. Individualism is a recent development in the West, specifically a tenet of liberalism in the tradition of Hobbes, Locke, and Mill. The liberal tradition cannot be understood completely except as a Christian heresy as it takes a properly Christian anthropology and distorts it by, in this case, exaggeration. So, in this case, while Christianity elevates the human person by recognizing his dignity as a rational and free agent, liberalism atomizes persons in a manner that effectively destroys or distorts their social nature, and in doing so, diminishes their humanity (Aristotle once famously said that a man who does not need society is either a beast or a god; I have my opinion about which tends to characterize our relationships today, and which tends to characterize our opinions of ourselves.) Now, the East does not have this Christian respect for persons. Indeed, it tends toward the opposite error of subordinating the person to society and instrumentalizing persons and making them expendable for the "greater good". We see something like this in the old pagan societies in the West as well (though, as we often see, this "greater good" is a tyranny). In the traditional, pre-liberal Christian vision, still taught by the Catholic Church, there is a simultaneous recognition and respect for persons, and a recognition of Man's social nature and the common good which precedes him and toward which he has a moral duty. We are born into societies (the family is the first and most important society from which the entire tapestry of mankind is woven). And it is the common good: it isn't the "greater good" of society that permits the sacrifice of others, but a good held in common, and also by which many goods are had, including things like private property, which follows from the common good (liberalism has it exactly backwards, because it conceives private property as prior and proper to the individual first, and the common good as something grudgingly ceded by individuals for common benefit).