I'm actually not talking about definitional individualism, as in "I am a unique entity with a will of my own," but rather political/philosophical individualism as espoused by quasi-Christian modern egalitarianism, i.e. "All men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights." This latter form of individualism--a worldview which now dominates every aspect of our society--results in a kind of paradoxical collective egoism, where every individual voice and concern is considered valid, and yet all opinions necessarily differ; the end result being a necessary appeal to the absolute lowest common denominator, which in our case is quantity over quality. A group of people presented with a basket of potatoes cannot agree which potatoes are best, but they can all agree that there are 7 potatoes, and 7 seems better than 3 (even if 3 superior potatoes are more nutritious than 100.)Gevaudan wrote:@Berserker: I agree that we should stop putting humankind and individuals above all else (after all, that's what we do with celebrities), but I'm not so willing to completely renounce my individuality. I'll admit I'm interested, but what does happen to the individual?
To answer the question... what happens to this individualism when the quantitative ideal shifts to the qualitative and holistic? Society begins to resemble nature in its drive towards adaptation; that which is vapid, unnecessary, or derisive towards the world itself no longer has an influencing voice, and if there are people who fit this description, they would need to strive to improve or fall to the wayside without a thought. This concept somewhat represents Nietzsche's philosophy of the overman. This also denotes an idea of competition between that which is functional and that which is less so, but I should note that this concept differs from Social Darwinism in that the overman doesn't merely conquer a frontier; he also conceptualizes and creates it.
I do hope we got something out of this talk though from both sides. 
