/lit/ - Literature

But anon, people have 2 legs, not 6

all this woke stuff is pretty individualistic. certainly not egalitarian

It's not egalitarian. It's not tolerant. It's an overproduction of would-be elites, and they are going to start shoving to get their piece of the pie (which they already have, but feel entitled to have more pie and be in charge of cutting it). Read some Peter Turchin.

That's a cool picture, OP. Mind if I have it?

>>18584046
>society will become a collectivist hive mind and eventually all individuality will disappear?
Good Riddance.

>>18584171
^this unironically

>>18584408
i wish the third world masses would take over america.

>individuality
Spooky Tbh

>>18584046
Ants share a 3 quarter genetic relatedness with each other in their colonies as do all eusocial insects. Humans could never behave that way because we only share a 50% genetic relatedness with our siblings, and we only have one or two siblings while our tribe or society is mostly composed of people much less related to us. The cooperation the eusocial insects display can only work because they have so many of each others genes that they benefit almost as much from their queen reproducing as they would from themselves doing so. This strategy overcomes the game theoretical conflicts inherent in our own social interactions, naked mole rats do the same thing btw for a mammalian example. We always have too much incentive to fuck over our brother let alone our neighbour, that's why we need entire religious structures to remind us constantly not to do that. We will never, ever be like ants, an ant colony is practically a single organism discontinously distributed in separate bodies, most of them are not even fertile so they're not really organisms at all, they're limbs.

>>18584184
>>18584172

I would say it is not totally egalitarian, but that it is certainly pushing for it. Tolerance is the most important virtue because it makes a society of multiculturalism and globalism possible.

The problem is that once people start to engage with this society they will have to become part of a company or another secular institution of liberal democracy. In this environment they will live and die under the hierarchy of said institution, with their past "culture" that is now tolerated by everyone becoming just a thing in their private lives. Now everyone is equal, like an ant. Its only a matter of time until their past cultures fade away. They will specialize into a field and work most of their lives with no time for a different culture other than the hegemony of tolerance, capitalism and social media.

But I also agree that theres material inequality and that most people who engage with this society are the elites(or wannabe-elites), trying to get more pie or a piece that they feel its beingt taken away from them. The reward system and a lot of private life is also hyper individualistic. I will see this Peter Turchin, seems interesting.

>>18584046
>eventually all individuality will disappear
god, i wish

>>18584408
I'm ESL. Are you mocking my engrish? Have I been found out? Either you are saying that individuality should go away or that I should go.>>18584478 this anon makes me think its the latter. I'm just training fren.

Now this one >>18584559 makes me think its the first. Theres no way to find out.


>>18584286
Yeah, take good care of it.

>>18584046
Only religion has a satisfying answer to the afterlife, so long term collectivism could only exist under a religious regime. If you don't have a good answer to this question, people will not give up their pursuit of self interest in this world. Still would need a major shakeup of order - maybe a nuclear war.

>>18584614
Satisfaction is subjective. Those people who are, according to their religion, going to hell or somewhere equivalent, would find greater satisfaction in nothingness. Besides, who said self-interest was contrary to collectivism, and that cooperation must be coerced by a bearded man in the skies? Indeed, people may find, through rational means, that their self-interest is in the well-being of the collective.

>>18584505
Now here is where the schizo part starts.

The system we already have in place works, in its ideal form, like an ant colony. Humans divide labor and work together towards the same collective goal, but for different individualistic goals. This collective goal, it appears, is more production or the advancement of humanity, as a collective. There is a difference between society and individuals. Society wants progress and individuals wants status, money or procreation and those are two different "wills". The power of reproduction and the ability to do work is in the individual, so society concedes money and status for those who follow its rules and contribute to it.

But now, If science develops some way to create better humans in labs, then the reproductive power of our species would be not in the individual, but on society and the institutions with power. If those new humans where also selected to be more agreeable and follow rules, then most of the power will now be on society an it will not have to care about the individual. The lab would be our bee queen and our reproductive sucess would depend on the collective. Of course human rights and others would protest and conflict would arise, but it would still fall under the goal of progress of society. More agreeable humans, created in labs, would become beneficial to society and its goals.

I also didnt know about those mole rats. Its incredible how this behavior could appear on mammals. I always though it was exclusive to insects.

Do you think our bodies can be categorized as an eusocial organism? I mean, for an individual cell the only way for sucessful reproduction is to help the collective (otherwise cancer).

>>18584046
Tocqueville.

how about some books about you going back to pol or growing up

>>18584835
op btfo

>>18584046
Elementary Particles by Houellebecq

>>18584046
Heidegger
Ellul

>>18584046
The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society
>As Maffesoli explains, modernity and the Enlightenment project – which was distinguished from Antiquity – privileged a binary distinction between the individual and society, and a view of the individual as rational, contractual and Cartesian. Modern individualism was institutionalised through property and contracts, and identity was prescribed in terms of the functional or specialist roles ascribed to individuals through family, class, work and civil society. For Maffesoli, however, we are no longer in the modern period. Although its categories and institutions continue to play a part, they are no longer dominant or as significant for understanding the contemporary world. In postmodernity, the binary opposition between the individual and society no longer holds, and both concepts have become unstable and fragmented.

>Rather than modern society, Maffesoli talks of postmodern sociality, the basis of which is simply being-together in everyday life. Out of the habitus of this sociality, there springs a new form of individual (a person or self) and an ‘ideal of community’. Youth cultures, subcultures and interest groups are formed which are interstitial, transitive and temporary; and social media and other internet activities facilitate and expand such fragmentation.

>The individual becomes a provisional member of overlapping groups, and the roles that the individual plays and the masks they wear within these often temporary and transitive groups become the source of their identity. This new individualism is not necessarily irrational, but it is rooted more in taste and everyday life as the individual tears itself away from traditionally modern adherences. Less of an individual and more of a person, the self becomes fragmented and unstable – Maffesoli discusses the breakdown in gender and sexuality binaries and the rise of trans- or meta- categories among the examples of this – and a person becomes the amalgam of the roles they play within their tribes, rather than a Cartesian individual.