[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 3.15 MB, 2448x3264, 1419153197118.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11143976 No.11143976 [Reply] [Original]

>every society in history has been built on collectivism
>absolute morons continue to try and con people into believing in individualism

why do they keep doing it? some innate need to be a snowflake?

>> No.11143986

yes

>> No.11143993

>>11143976
individualism is the reality of a thing especially if you don't pit group against each other. Hence why we have multiculturalism now as a way to profit politically from racism between groups.

>> No.11143995

no

>> No.11144005

good post

>> No.11144009

>>11143993

individualism will never exist as a dominant force in society, that will always belong to collectivism

at the end of the day, individualism is only something the privileged are afforded the opportunity of practicing

>> No.11144015

>>11143976
because individualism works

>> No.11144027

>>11144015

lol post a single historical example you fuckwit

the world is currently more embroiled in collectivism than ever, race relations are in the shitter and tensions are ever escalating

being a free spirit means fuck all now

>> No.11144035

>>11143976
individualism is a memetic weapon used to destroy group cohesion

>> No.11144037

>>11144027
jesus who told /his/ about /lit/?

>> No.11144052

>>11143976
t. foundation man booty blasted by the mule

>> No.11144061

>>11143976

>individualism

Aren’t we better than stooping to sociology here? It’s about national-genetic character - as if Mogadishu, Copenhagen, or Tokyo are all operating on an equal field of “individualism vs collectivism”

>> No.11144067

>>11143976
Because small groups of people consisting of charismatic individuals often seize control over massive populations. When Nietzsche or any Capitalist talks about individualism, they mean that social programs should not constrain creative power seekers who want to work their will upon the world. So, if there is an aristocrat and he has a perfect policy for the health services of his kingdom, he should be allowed by the king to enact that with little restriction from bureacratic oversight or the people’s desires. That’s individualism. The hope is that people in business or government can be creative, geniuses really, who accomplish more by themselves or in small consenting groups of people (not bound by strict oversight and being answerable to the public; think UN sec council, fed reserve, founders during con convention) out compete large collectives who have to answer to more people and dilute the genius of the few outstanding members. Its also predicated on the idea that collectivism is overkill quite often and if its made the rule for everyone like in communist countries and ancient china then you will produce too many unthinking drones who can be exploited by cliques of entrenched people’s champions or just gangster kleptocrats. And you can even make a ritual of exchanging these kleptocrats for decades which happened in rome, in africa, in china during the warlord period frequently. That’s the rationale, there’s obviously ethical and maybe spiritual justifications like the crowd being naturally willing to arbitrarily harm its own members or make a ritual sacrifice for the “good” of the many, and it harms the sensitive or reclusive types who may have much to offer us compared to these homogenous spirits.

Without going further into implausible justifications its worth your time to ask whether a horde of 90 iq rednecks should be in charge of all the resources humans can attempt to harness in the Southern US or if a small elite group of well heeled southern gentlemen would be better suited. Would you want to have a group of african villagers deciding what to do with your wife or would you want them atomized and organizing around economic, sexual and social interests? you can bargain with 2-5 africans, you have to pay tribute to 100 of them and you are at the absolute mercy of a horde without weaponry or basically being ransomed/extorted (this is what happens to geniuses in collectivist societies they are held captive and extorted for their fruits or ransomed to institutes which “buy them” from the maw of the public by donating extra resources to zones where they concentrate; think of what we do with unis in this vein, over enrolling just to ensnare the 20% of thinkers).

Eventually there is an emergence of negative behaviors from collectivism that outweighs the benefits of restraining precocious small groups and individuals (elites) which creates lower productivity and depresses the entire spirit of the people

>> No.11144079
File: 1.46 MB, 446x469, 1506293293959.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11144079

>>11144061
>genetic character

>> No.11144088

Marx's shit only works with factory workers.
If you think The Foundation was about the Mule being special instead of fucking everything up by being a jealous asshole, then you're fucking retarded.

>> No.11144097

>>11144027
europe
>the world
why do murricans have to project their autism onto everyone else

>> No.11144106

>>11144088
of course the ultimately irony being the only place that marxism successful brought revolution was actually agrarian cultures desperately in need of land reform, marxism is just all wrong on everything, but most philosophy is so its not special in that sense, its just in this case millions of people had to die

>> No.11144121

>>11144067
how can anyone read the firs tparagraph and think anything other than "this is fucking retarded" is beyond me
an aristocrat with a "perfect" healthcare policy, for fuck's sake

>> No.11144129
File: 265 KB, 1200x1807, 1200px-Charles_Taylor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11144129

>>11143976
>he thinks that individualism and collectivism are the only options

>> No.11144744

>>11144129
I wish I could afford his books.

>> No.11144754

>>11144027
>race relations are in the shitter
I'm guessing your American? Would you say race relations were better 50-60 years ago?

>> No.11144771

>>11143976
Asimov is a pseud.

>> No.11144779
File: 204 KB, 312x750, 1484113427351.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11144779

>>11144754
Not him, but no, not really.

>> No.11144788

>>11144754
race relations were better 200 years ago desu senpai

>> No.11144798

>reads hegel once

>> No.11144806

>>11143976
>>every society in history has been built on collectivism
Wow, what a retard.

>> No.11144822

Societies have been built on order often with force, you are a gimp if you think all hitherto society has relied upon its members viewing themselves as part of the whole. Unless you are talking about the family/bloodline, collectivism is for bugs.

>> No.11144824

False dichotomy

>> No.11144831

>>11144779
What a retarded way of thinking, "adjusting for population size", and I don't even care for niggers.

>> No.11144837

>>11144779
Blacks scary! Whites weak!

Thanks jidf

>> No.11144843

>retards in this thread vouching for individualism by trying to get their opinion validated by the collective

Go live in the woods if you want individualism

>> No.11144847

>>11144843
>retard arguing for collectivism with his individual opinion

>> No.11144862

>>11144847
Its not individual if i was helped along the way. Some one who never met another human is the only one capable of being human. Read hegels master and slave dialectics for more info

>> No.11144863

>>11143976

Maybe because all you experience in life is from the perspective of the individual subject and the fact that your experience and therefore every notion of value you can come up with is referred to you is inescapable and you mostly don't want your own individual needs/mental experience being trampled upon or fagocitated by a faceless collectivity?
Greek tragedy in origin was chorus and a single actor. Collectivity and the individual. These are two opposite, ineliminable principles, and you better give space to both in whatever future society you hope to build, or you'll end up having either a dictatorship where no individual expression is allowed, or mad max fury road, where everyone just do whatever the fuck they want and live like animals.

So no, society is not build on collectivism, but on a balance between collective organization and how it benefits individual needs.
Stop being an angsty commie teen and think with your brain, not with the faint hope of getting laid by raising your left fist at some rally throbbing in your penis.

>> No.11144865
File: 70 KB, 634x419, 1492046714117.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11144865

>>11143976
>muh society!!!

>> No.11144867

>>11144862
Only one capable of being individual^

>> No.11144878

>>11144862
>if i cooperate with others i do not do so as an individual
Wow i guess miss me with that Hegel shit glad i did not waste my time

>> No.11144885

>>11143976
Does the Foundation trilogy support individualism? The the psychohistorians of the Second Foundation are basically a guardian class no?

t. brainlet

>> No.11146494

>>11143976
individualism has to come first before the collectivists have anything to collect around. One man acting as an individual does a thing. quasi-collectivists collectivize around him, and it gradually transitions towards full collectivism. But the individuals still exist and experiment, so the change still happens.

Full collectivists can't fucking think on their own, how do you think they would know what to collect around? An individual must figure it out, and the socially minded people must copy him

>> No.11146498

>>11143976
don't have anything to say other than Asimov was fucking awesome writer and enthralled me with his books.

>> No.11146525

>>11146494

All individuality is constituted out of references to a group or things collected and preserved by a group. There is no individuality outside of society, and society is actually the potentiality of the individual. Read Hegel. Immediacy, alienation, and the overcoming of alienation of powers. That'll get you started. Society literally progressed by individuals distributing themselves over collectives so new forms can be discovered within those collectives and the progress can repeat itself.

>> No.11146535

>>11143976
>every society in history has been built on collectivism

The entire Western world is individualistic

>> No.11146541

>>11146525
then how did the things the group has get there in the first place?

>> No.11146544

>>11146494
>One man acting as an individual does a thing. quasi-collectivists collectivize around him, and it gradually transitions towards full collectivism.
except you've cut out the whole collective effort that has enabled him to make of himself the person he is, as well as the fact that these "individuals" generally don't "do a thing". they employ other individuals to do things.
you're looking at half of the puzzle thinking it's the whole thing.

>> No.11146553

>>11144822
>collectivism is for bugs.

and the chinese

>> No.11146555

>>11143976
The foundation, kill individualism brainlet. Did you miss the glacsia end or what ? Even the foundation itself is anty individualism.

>> No.11146618

>>11146544
I agree that it is a whole puzzle. And it is sort of relative, a sliding scale, and some other factors. One individual can specialize in pursuing one area, going as far as he can down one line of thought, building it as he goes, and he uses the collective as a sort of a foundation to rest on. He accepts on faith things from them so that he can free up his mind to focus on other things. That is specialization, it kind of complicates the line between individualism and collectivism.

There is also people who aren't so specialized, and therefore don't have to take anything on faith from the collective, figure out how to do things on their own, and then the collective can absorb those things in order to change and grow. It is a sliding scale, very few people would be 100% either way. But I can remove myself from the culture a bit, figure out something new, and then immediately go to share it with the others. But that can be limiting. The more time I spend socializing with others, giving them what I have created, the less time I have to create. A completely individualized person can create the biggest thoughts, the newest ideas, which the collective can use. However, the tradeoff is that the collective is a lot less likely to end up with it. These individuals might seem rare, though I suspect they are less rare than they seem, it is just the nature of how they act that makes you less likely to be aware of them. Many of them only being recognized after death. To make use of them, we do need halfway inbetween people, and people who will reach out to the individualized man, or even just observe him from a distance, or study the trails he leaves behind, because he wont reach out to you

>> No.11146791

>>11146618
>The more time I spend socializing with others, giving them what I have created, the less time I have to create.
this is drivel, just like the rest of your post
if you are creating then to earn money off your creation you will by definition eventually have to socialize with others, so your objections are meaningless
or do you think people will flock to your door, begging you to show them how your juicero v2.0 works in detail

>> No.11146910

>>11146791
Well I'll tell you there have been people in history who have cared more for their inventions than their profitablilty. What you quote from me remains true, if I spend time trying to sell my inventions, I limit the time I spend thinking of inventions.

And as for people knocking at their door, maybe, it is up to them. If not, they can also observe from a distance, or study trails left behind when I am not there. Or they can not know or care about me at all, and I can die alone, and they never find what I have discovered. I'm sure that has happened many times more than history is aware of. But, if I die and leave something that someone else can pick up, and study, it can be gained posthumously.

But I am not talking about people who invented a new type of fucking juicer, this shows how dependent your mind is already. I am not talking about someone creating an updated version of something that was already a variation of something created because it is highly marketable. I am talking about someone ignoring you and everything you ever thought or cared about to create something completely alien to you. Nikola Tesla, not 100%, but would be someone along these lines

>> No.11146949

>>11146541

People exist and make private efforts but everything in the private sphere is drawn out of the communal and natural one. The philosophical "individual' does not exist. The great novelist, for example, is part of a cultural and literary tradition. Zola draws from Balzac, who in turn has his sources, and contemporary France. He makes a contribution. We only recognize the contribution because it is able to be taken up, and it is able to be taken up because it makes use of these elements rather than purely personal ones, like, say Henry Danger.

Scientific contributions are often made more individually through contemplation of the natural but the modes of contemplaiton and the starting point are usually created and preserved by a community.

You might say individuals invented fire or something but it's totally meaningless in modern society. The most "individual" stuff is the most worthless.

>>11146535
Pay more attention to the first half than the second half. A community's own mythology sometimes obscures the true operation of that community.

>> No.11146962

>>11146910
what you're describing is a collectivist society

>> No.11147014

>>11146962
no it isnt. No fucking collective can create a tesla, the best they can do is drain him and try to take credit, and the more they collectivize him the less he can invent. The more he realized not to trust what any one else thought, the more he learned to be able to think completely within himself, the greater he became. And fortunately by doing this succesfully his ideas became so great that many of them were difficult to understand so the collectivists didn't bother trying to steal them as much.

>>11146949
it's a limitation. I could use others for what I create, sure, and most people do. But the further I slide the scale away from using the thoughts of others the more creative I become. But also the less recognizable and understandable I become, so there is the tradeoff

>> No.11147045

>>11147014
where did tesla get his education, did it fall from the sky? where did he get his food, medicine, clothes, transport, roads, fucking everything? OTHER PEOPLE MADE THOSE THINGS. your "individualism" is nothing more than elitism in different clothes.

>> No.11147119

>>11147045
this is where the backwards credit stealing comes in. People are forcibly educated, and then education is attributed as the cause of everything great they ever did. And then selectively, not the bad things they do. Because the collectivists want any credit they can get because they couldn't have thought of it themselves.

Yes, Tesla went through education, and the more he did the more he realized to move past them. He became great when he had detached himself from them. What education taught him about x-rays? None, nobody had any clue of their existence. He was not standing on the shoulders of giants. Maybe when he was a child, but then as he got older he learned to find his own space and reach where none of the giants had ever been, and never would have been, had he remained collectivized

>> No.11147176

>>11147119
ahaha you're completely nuts
and I bet you see yourself as tesla 2.0

>> No.11147188

>>11144121
missing the fucking point

>> No.11147197

>>11147176
>got rekt so he reverts to insults

>> No.11147209

>>11143976
Imagine you belonged to a tiny ethnic group that had been kicked out of hundreds of countries. Would you really be promoting nationalism in each new country you came to? Get real.

>> No.11147211

>>11144106
>blaming Marx for the atrocities commited by “Marxist-Leninist” state capitalist regimes

Do you also blame Jesus for the atrocities commited by the Crusaders and the Inquisition?

>> No.11147212

>>11147197
the only thing you rekked is your own mental stability

>> No.11147225

>>11144079
Squint harder, Sam. You'll figure it out.

>> No.11147231

>>11144009
it exist today as a dominant force in society

>> No.11147938

>>11147176
no I don't

the least you could take it as is outsider art, except not just art, but also outsider science, philosophy, just outsider thought in general. And then your collective can take these thoughts and check them against themselves to see if there is anything worth taking or learning from. But they are still an outsider, that is why it is outsider art. And the more outside they are, the more outside the art is. If you want the benefits, you will have to bridge the gap to them, if they have to cater it to you, then it loses a degree of its outsideness

>> No.11148003

>>11144027
>individualism sucks, not because there's anything wrong with it, but because nobody I'm aware of will validate it

le born in le wrong generation face

>> No.11148112

>>11147211
>"THAT WASN'T REAL COMMUNISM"
I wonder if this will still be the excuse in 100 years.