Is society necessary?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Ifwe did not have a set of norms and values to conform to, it is also not possible to rebel. Rebellion now is also a norm, and often has a set of values attatched to it. Yet if it was achieved then surely that would simply become the norm..and many of a rebellious mind set would look for another way of working things. I suppose what I am asking is; if we cannot find fulfillment in a society with its values, or in rebelion, are we not simply going to remain unfulfilled?

I dislike our current society, although I am content. However, I do not really give credt for things that many see as an achievement, in turn I give credit where others don't. If we abolished a formally structured society, where values are promoted via various agencies, would we not become inneffecient at interacting with each other? This in turn actually slowing the proccess of change (I won't use progression because it is subjective) furthering the discontent of those not capable of fulfillment in an unstructured society.

[fallenmonk]

I would submit that social fulfillment is unattainable, as man is a semi-social animal at best. Furthermore, I believe we ARE inefficient at interacting with one another and the agencies of which you speak are, in part, conciously responsible. After all, what makes man more inefficient as a living, thinking entity than conformity to another's will? We are indoctrinated with the ethos of structure on the rather pessimistic assumption that we are incapable of living peaceful, responsible lives without it. Surely, without religious or governmental(corporate) interference this would be a much more peaceful existence, one focused on the progress of the individual rather than the pointless pursuit of glory for the greater good(whatever that may be).
Myself, I am one of those who abhor structure and am equally disgusted by those who presume to know what is best for me, and by those who so willfully trade their freedom away for security (or rather, the illusion of security). I know this will sound uncaring, but "those not capable of fulfillment in unstructured society" are weak, cowardly. I am unconcerned about their welfare, just as I am aware of their disdain and lack of concern for godless cavemen such as myself. As far as i'm concerned, they are disrupting the natural order.
The laws and values of structured society, however, are the result of another problem. Aldous Huxley wrote that the root of all social problems is overpopulation. that was 50 yrs ago when the earth's population was around 2 billion. Human interaction on a massive scale can only lead to massive civil discontent. As the population continues to explode social entropy will be proportionately evident. As such things are cyclic, thus will begin a new structural paradigm with new, or perhaps simply stricter, laws and values, but with the same intent: the suppresion of individual potential for the material advancement of the avaricious few.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Where would this leave ideologies such as..well any. It sound as though, via the human instinct argument, stated that structuring a society is bound to failure. Are you an anarchist? Or social darwinists? All of which I would say are asspects at least to my character. So assuming that fulfillment is unatainable, do you think that an unegalitarean approach is justified?

[fallenmonk]

Perhaps the answer to your first question lies in another. Are ideologies the cause of, or result of structured society? I would argue that civilization results from the fear of the unknown, fear of mother nature's power. Ideologies, like great cities, are a defense mechanism, a shield to protect the weak from the wild via incorporation into the herd. The individual, a pure entity, accepts existence and thus has no use for ideologies as such. He wants only freedom, which is less an ideology as it is a basic biological and psychological need.

Yes, I would consider myself an anarchist and I do believe that society is bound to fail, as is anything which attempts to subvert natural law.(yes I realize that natural law is structured as well, but it is an inescapable paradox)

In response to your last question, I did not say fulfillment was unattainable, I said social fulfillment was. Assuming fulfillment is to mean a prosperous, peaceful existence for the human species I don't see how anything other than an egalitarian approach is justified. A given culture's fulfillment directly corresponds to the oppurtunity afforded to the individual. How can the individual flourish in an oppresive, manipulative social climate?

If we look throughout history it is obvious that man cannot live with himself. Simpler cultures, though heavily burdened by mother nature, were much less likely to suffer violence and oppression at the hands of other men. Only when uniting over some arbitrary, cosmically irrelevant ideal do men cause real damage to one another. The rugged individualist seeks not to harm others but only to be free to sculpt his own life. The great redeeming aspect of structured society is art(which I realize is often great because of the social suffering which inspired it), but the so-called primitive cultures produced a comparable creative climate.

Peter Farb once called the hunter-gatherers "the original affluent" precisely because they were free to shape their own existence, uninfected by forced morality or industrial servitude. We will never be free, and consequently never be fulfilled, so long as men seek to prey upon one another in the name of social progress and religous salvation.

sorry about the length but its a good topic.

[Hegemonicretribution]

If social fulfillment is unattainable then how can we ever achieve an independant fulfillment? What is prosperity, I believe that like solitude, success is fine, but you need someone to tell you it is fine. It depends how you interperet prosperity, as to whether or not it has resulted in a fulfilled people.

Surely natural law will result in a more unegalitarian future, even if it is in the asbscence of society, rather than in its embracement?

I must say that I appreciate your full answers, and this has been an enjoyable discussion this far. The reason I am making these points/questions is that I appreciate science, art and philosophy, and I am not sure what place they could play outside of the confines of society. They have, in my oppinion been the human race's only great achievements, and the only sustainable purstuit for people, in their attempt to become fulfilled.

Perhaps unfulfillment is positive, at least in the fact that it spawns so much creativity in the three mentioned above. So the only route to a true fullfillment is also almost always destined to fail, and by becoming fulfilled, one must have come of the patrh they set out on. I suppose therefore that oppression itself is, at least partially, self imposed. That is to say that by shunning a society where fulfillment is impossible, we also shun all real achievement.