/lit/ - Literature

>>12250065
>But I still fail to see how these are anything more than anything than contemplations of a rich inner life opposed to the corporeal everyday minutia we actually experience wether that’s something that is or isn’t fully realized.
I'm not sure what you mean here exactly. If the opposition is between contemplation and everyday corporeal minutia then you're already in a different type of philosophical system, potentially a dualistic one whereas most pluralistic (as in reducing the self to a plurality of assemblages - habits, memories, drives etc.) systems do not make a distinction between body and mind except perhaps as a secondary consideration (some forms of epiphenomenalism).

>We’re being alone in the world.
While not a position exclusive to collectivists, some focus on how we're not alone even when there's nobody around simply because we're so rooted in society and culture and language (even when we go against them) and these things are themselves collective in some sense. Especially if you deny a metaphysical individual entity, you are even closer to this collective (or however you want to call it) substrate because it intertwines with "your" other assemblages (including material ones since behaviors are learned and consolidated through repetition while still being influenced to say the least by genetic/epigenetic predispositions).

>Our natural state being that of the individual and we can sometimes collectivize; thus the individuals ability to conceive oneself as such is tantamount to the trust and best like IE:heroic individualism.
I'd say rather, following Hume, that we are sympathetic rather than altruistic or egotistic that is to say we are predisposed to caring for those close to us (with sociopathic and psychopathic exceptions of course) and something similar happens with individualism-collectivism since we live with others for most of our lives. For example babies who get no proper human interaction/affection (just feeding and other basic necessities to keep them alive) tend to die inexplicably as far as I know. In fact individualism can just as well be a reaction (positive or negative) to family or society or culture and thus caught in the logic that it's trying to escape. I'm not picking either term, rather I would say that the very opposition is flawed and most societies try to integrate both even if the accent falls on one or the other.