THE PACK Message Boards

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?

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.)

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.

@Silent Hunter: As much as I like political discussions, it's too hard to do it on a forum, where you have to argue in blocks of text disproving other blocks of text. Silent Hunter, can we agree to disagree? I doubt that we're going to convince each other, nor are we going to come to any sort of mutual conclusion or peaceful resolution.

Oh thats fine, I know how annoying it is to do these sometimes and we probably are not going to convince each other. I do hope we got something out of this talk though from both sides.

@Terasta, Gev and Silent Hunter:
I'm gonna back out of the debate and let it go. Please don't infer that as a surrender.

The fact is, I'm sick, I can't get help, universal/single payer/public option healthcare is the only chance I have of getting better again because, under the current health insurance model, I'm on the outside looking in because I had cancer a few years ago, cataracts and retinal detachment the year after that, and osteoarthritis and chronic fatigue now. And I couldn't afford the premiums and deductibles anyway, even if I was as healthy as a barrel of oranges and blueberries.

Selfish? Yeah, possibly, but lying on my back and waiting to die isn't an option.

Jingles' @ sign is quite catchy.

@Berserker: Indeed. Great thoughts, I'll keep them in mind whenever a conversation drifts into individualism.

@Silent Hunter: Yes, I think I did get something out of it: I've met my match.

@vrikasatma: I see. I won't infer it as a surrender; I'm a bit tired of it myself.