Individuality

[blueeyedboy]

Hi, I don't post much on this forum, mainly because my philosophical knowledge is limited. I have, however, become intrested in the concept of individuality. I want to know from the other members on this board whether individuality is possible, or whether we are all governed by social forces. Personally, I don't think there is that much individuality in the world, and that society rules. I come from a psychology background, social psychology to narrow it down. I am also intrested in subjectivism, and all the branches that deal with it.

I am a firm believer in the idea that we perceive things how we want to perceive them i.e. subjectively. Does anyone share these two ideas with me, the idea of governance by social forces and subjectivity.

[Hit The North]

I am a firm believer in the idea that we perceive things how we want to perceive them i.e. subjectively.

Well, when you think about it perception is necessarily subjective. On the other hand, as revolutionaries we must also accept the possibility that our perceptions have a collective nature.

Karl Marx was also interested in individuality. He wrote a lot on how the human individual is subordinated to capital and the world of things and stripped of its creativity.

He argues that under capitalism true individuality is unattainable. Only once we've disposed of class society will we be able to create a truly human society under which the voluntary association of individuals are free to develop.

On the other hand, Marxists are critical of the 'isolated individual' which is presented in capitalist ideology. Ironically, real individualism is only possible in the context of a collective sociability.

[Mario_Terán]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 12, 2006 12:03 am
Ironically, real individualism is only possible in the context of a collective sociability.
Ironically, your post is hypocritical and is double think.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Mario_Terán+December 12, 2006 01:21 am--> (Mario_Terán @ December 12, 2006 01:21 am)
Citizen [email protected] 12, 2006 12:03 am
Ironically, real individualism is only possible in the context of a collective sociability.
Ironically, your post is hypocritical and is double think.[/b]
Meanwhile, your use of the word 'hypocritical' is simply incorrect.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, for once, I have to agree with you.

[hoopla]

Nah, like, Mario, would you say that you are never an individual in a crowd? Or that to be an individual you must not socialize? That is nonsense.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

How are you talking about the individual? Is it in the same sense Locke and Hume discussed it or another? If so, I would have to talk the side of Hume and say that if there is individuality, it changes every second of every day. This is merely a position of skepticism for lack of real alternatives, though.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Do we create the way society is or does society create the way we are?
If you are going to say that society influences individuals to the point that nobody is truly "individual" then you have to ask yourself who influences society? We do, so in order for that to be, I'd say that SOME people must have been able to truly act as individuals.

[Angry Young Man]

And the point is that too few people are afforded the opportunity to act as true individuals. I think it's quite simple that the true individuals are the press, who influence what the populace thinks. If everyone was afforded the right to be individual, there would be alot more eccentricity.
The only individuals who are outside the circle of power are people who react to these people.

[blueeyedboy]

I agree with Everyday Anarchy in that for social forces to act on us, a certain form of individuality must be present to shape these social forces. It seems to me that society has a mind of its own, like it's a gigantic living thing. Isn't society entirely subjective, or does society have objective rules. What I'm trying to get at is isn't society different for every person or does every person shape his own society. If a person can sujectively shape society, then why has there developed societal norms which the majority of people adhere to. Surely, if society was subjective, then the rules would be changing constantly.

[Epoche]

The extent of "subjectivity" is "thinking with words" without speaking, or acknowledging to oneself the presence to a sign or image. The reason why these instances are subjective is because they are "private" in the sense that although they are "objective truths," they are not yet subject to language discourse and therefore are not public instances of thought.

However, the content of thinking is not personal or subjective either, because language is a learned thing. One does not generate words or meanings without an intersubjective relation to pre-established definitions.

Subjectivity is simply the personal mediation of language and sense awareness without such things acting as sensory data themselves, in which case the thinking would be vocalized in language and become public.

[gilhyle]

The original post suggests we are not individuals if we are 'governed' by social forces. But that definition confuses the undetermined and the particular.

Our individuality could well reside in the particular manner in which we are each governed by social forces.

But if that was not so and even if your individuality consisted solely in the particularlity your death.....so what ?

Are we only individuals if our character is in some way unique ? Why would that be so ?

[Hegemonicretribution]

You can view a person with regards to their position in society, but first you must establish what you are understanding as "society." It is possible that a person be treated like a god within a tiny section of their society; a cult for example....and at the same time be rejected by larger society.

Society is really the sum of individuals. You can argue that there is something over and above this, or you can allow for social interaction as an element of individuality, it doesn't really matter.

We exist, we have no pre-determined essence, we react to stimulus (as we see fit) and then we die...

Personally I am not a fan of determinism, and I am a big supporter of individuality. The individual can help initiate change and progress, or can at the very least provide a benchmark for society. Allowing for individuality, and indeed encouraging it is an important aspect of freedom, and an importan safe-guard against stagnation.

[Hit The North]

Society is more than the sum of individuals which compose it. It has definite relations (of production, property and power) which are indispensable to its existence and a specific culture which is the product of its history and which continues to evolve and shape human interaction in the present.


The individual can help initiate change and progress...

Whilst this is sometimes true, fundamental change emerges as the result of collective interactions between self-interested groups and the working out of forces which although initiated by humans, are largely outside of their direct control.

The human individual is at once rational, purposive and knowledgeable whilst at the same time shaped by external social forces which s/he has little control over.

[Dimentio]

All interactions are social, but the individual could of course be seen as an entity on her own. In fact individuality should be promoted, and we should design society so that each and every individual is guaranteed the opportunities to fulfil her dreams.

[Epoche]

We should remember what question we are asking; is an ego possible. What makes a person "individual" when he is with the Other? The only context where this is possible is in private language and the "cogito." The consciousness that transcends the Other's objectifying of us, since any quality about us, those things that are objects, are not personal and individual when they are public. Your "body" is not the individuality of you, nor are the other features of your "being." The question here is what is an ego and how does the idea of "self" take up an identity.

Regarding change in society, as a materialist I do not believe that conscious intentions cause change in the world, but are instead an effect. For example, the invention of a complex machine or device. While it seems as if this thing was designed, it is in fact only a succession of contingent ends which proceed somewhat arbitrarily. The end result, the "combustion engine" is the result of the contingent end of the idea and knowledge of the "possibility of combustion" and the instances therein its discovery. Likewise, the flammability of the fuels which cause the combustion which causes the possibility for the engine are in turn discovered "non-teleologically" and without anticipation.

If you use this example to extend throughtout all instrumental progress-- "material change in the world," you can see that in reality man does not "arrive" at an essence....he does not "become what was supposed......etc." He is there in his material conditions and experiences himself assembling contingent aspects of discovery into a progressive movement-- he "makes" things. However the society is not "changed" by the ego or the self or the individual because the "self" does not reach the world...it does not act on the world.

Consider propaganda. We can say that propaganda certainly caused activity in society, but is this accurate? Do "words" do anything? I think not. Words accrue to activities...not vice-versa.

[Hit The North]

Consider propaganda. We can say that propaganda certainly caused activity in society, but is this accurate? Do "words" do anything? I think not. Words accrue to activities...not vice-versa.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.

Of course words have an effect. The oratory of Lenin or Trotsky motivated people to act in a certain way. The words which Marx and Engels wrote down in the Communist Manifesto gave people a perspective which was missing before, or only half-realised in the actions and thinking of ordinary people.

To conceive language as only representational is too reductive, imo.

[black magick hustla]

The collective is not more important than the individual.

The individual is not more important than the collective.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Sure the collective's more important than the individual. 10,000 people are more important than one.

-Alex

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 01:54 am
Sure the collective's more important than the individual. 10,000 people are more important than one.

-Alex
No they aren't. Quit viewing it in such a holistic view.
To each one of those 10,001 people, they are most important... and they are most important. Each and every one of them is most important.

A life is a life, it doesn't matter how many other lives they're being grouped with.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Yeah, each person values their own particular ego more than the next person's, but personally, if 10,000 people all want something contrary to what I want, the 10,000 people should always get what they want. And I'd concede that without a second thought.

I think you're involving yourself in the equation too much. You need to detatch yourself from the scenario. The will of 10,000 is entirely more important than the will of one.

I think in this case it is just a numbers game, unless you go into real depth about each member of a collective. 100 are more important than 99, 99 is more important than 98. Surely?

-Alex

[blueeyedboy]

I don't believe that one individual can change society. I agree that an individual can come up with an idea, but to shape this idea into something worth pursuing, surely this person needs other people to make this happen. George Bush is an individual and changes society, but its not really him that changes society. Its his military, his people behing the scenes, he probably doesn't even have his own ideas. Karl Marx was an individual with a nice idea, but he needed other people to make his concepts reality. I agree with the idea that individuality is possible, but only in certain cases, like your private thoughts. Come to think of it, are your own thoughts socially determined? I have come to beleive in social determinism. Does anyone beleive in social determinism?

[Epoche]

Each and every one of them is most important.

Trying to prove that very fact and all the difficulty in doing so is what has made "moral" philosophy impossible. Every moral philosophy begins with an ideal or standard which it then uses to measure the value of action. But everyone contains one or more contradictions or paradoxes. Objectivism does not work and Relativism does not work. The reason is because each position is using metaphors as axioms, or "evaluations" as "material facts," such as an action being objectively "good" or "bad." The objectivists seek to unite the fact and the value together....the relativists insist that facts themselves are values. This argument exists only because of the peculiar problems in epistemology and language. As long as "morality" is a "philosophical" subject, it will never be productive. Human activity is not metaphorical and has no value, either subjectively or objectively. Anything which is not a scientific method in morality is idealism, and with that comes all the difficulties.

At the basis of the argument lies the question of teleology; first philosophy must prove that there is "purpose" in change and evolution before it can begin discerning valuations about it, before it can have the standard or ideal. Since this is impossible, the focus must be shifted onto what is known for sure and what is directly experienced. Epicurus, who was a great influence to Marx, began with such a sentient philosophy. With the addition of the idea of a non-teleological evolution, a hedonist "imperative," so to speak, is the final resolve for the marriage of philosophy and science.

When we can no longer suppose a purpose to existence, we can no longer assume "a priori" values such as good and bad, because we have no ideal or standard in mind.

(a good comparison of teleological arguments concerning "life" can be found in Darwin and Spinoza, contrasting them. For Spinoza, there is no "greater type" because an evolutionary process is infinite. He is describing "ontological" evolution here...the fact that is has no beginning or end and consists of infinite "assembly" of causes and effects. Darwin does not go this distance and remains that evolution would be acting in a way such that the purpose of a species is to enhance its type. It certainly would. But this doesn't mean it should or is.)

The giant swerve away from pure epicurean science and materialism occured when language inventions became arbitrary and began expressing metaphors rather than facts. This is due to the complexity of the brain and how it has evolved in unison with language use. Human beings became "poets" four thousand years ago, give or take a million years.

(Rosa provides an excellent and detailed history of these "gradual mistakes" in philosophy that occured as language evolved via the dominating ideologies of the time. Hermetic origins for example.)

I support eugenics and a strict scientific authority over reproduction rights. Once you realize that there are no "immoral" practices in human affairs, save torture (that's another story), you will not hesitate to begin a program of developing "better" human beings as science dictates, and regulating reproduction of the species. The tired old arguments about cloning and abortion and what have you are irrelevent.

[blueeyedboy]

Epoche, I don't understand what you just posted. As I said, I'm relatively new to philosophy, so I'm not used to the terminology. What are you trying to say? Are you talking about philosophy as a whole, or are you intergrating something with individuality?

[Epoche]

Epoche, I don't understand what you just posted.

I don't think I do either, actually. Sorry man. I'm making it more complicated than it is really. I do that often and confound even myself.

I was trying to traverse a few hundred years of moral philosophy and show how philosophies that claim the individual is more important than the group, or vice-versa, is subject to several problems because the criterion needed to do so successfully is lacking.

[Bretty123]

Basically Epoche was getting at the gist of some of the newer criticisms of philosophy put forth such as the linguistic criticism of the analytic philosophy. Wittgenstein says philosophy is the bewitchment of our language and its purpose is to clarify thought, not to answer unanswerable and often unquestionable topics.

The part he speaks of axioms is getting at the problem of philosophy wherein people posit different axioms or matters of fact in their philosophical systems they create and critique others using that axiom. However the problem with this is its only a matter of belief and for the most part never true to reality. For example, Hegel assumes divine providence exists and therefore bases his whole philosophy on this axiom. Plato offers his world of forms as an axiom. And another would be someone like Sartre who was atheist. These are all axioms that these philosophers use to construct their whole philosophy around without it necessarily being scientifically verified.

For education sake - Teleology means purpose, or for existentialists like Heidegger: matter and aspect of objects[people, things]. It comes from the greek telos, you'll see it alot in traditional philosophy.

Axioms are undeniable truths.

A priori is the opposite of A posteriori. A priori means "before experience" and a posteriori means "after experience". These are used throughout philosophy in different ways but mean more or less the same.

So in the good and bad example that Epoche gave, "a priori" good and bad would infer that good and bad are existent to the world without experience of a person to determine what they are. So when you commit a crime that is deemed bad, it was objectively a bad crime before you existed.

I hope this clears up some stuff.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 03:55 pm
Once you realize that there are no "immoral" practices in human affairs, save torture (that's another story), you will not hesitate to begin a program of developing "better" human beings as science dictates, and regulating reproduction of the species.
Its interesting to see how this thread has wandered all over the place:

- private language argument
- role of the individual in history
- society as the sum of individuals
- teleology

The point of the original question was whether individuals are determined by social forces. I think the question was misconceived because loaded with too much baggage - for example the implicit idea that character, if determined by social forces, would not display any great variety and, maybe, the implicit idea that character if significantly variable has some sort of higher standing than if not.

Anyway, two thoughts:

if society is the sum of individuals then I should I be able to divide society by the number of individuals and get the average value of an individual........nonsense....why ? 'cos the idea that society is a sum is an ineffective metaphor.

Finally, I think, Epoche, you will find torture is not another story but fits in perfectly well as reasonable, rational behaviour into the story you are constructing.

[Epoche]

The point of the original question was whether individuals are determined by social forces.

This is the question which requires these things to be discussed:


- private language argument
- role of the individual in history
- society as the sum of individuals
- teleology

No? I don't see why you think the thread is "wandering."

How easily do you define "individuals" and "determined" and "social forces"?

(and I thought what I said wasn't enough! How ironic.)

[Epoche]

The point of the original question was whether individuals are determined by social forces.

If you define "social forces" to be "material circumstances" then yes, an individual is determined, because his physical options for action are limited to the possibilities present in the circumstances.

But how do you define "action"?

Consider this. (an example Sartre uses to demonstrate) Does a careless smoker who has accidentally ignited a fuse with his cigarette, really act if he did not intend that action? Meaningful action in principle must be defined as intentional or else it is not authentic, it is not a choice. This is a bit of a paradox. If action is both determined by social forces but also intentional, then the individual cannot be both determined by what is as well as an effort toward what is not-- example, it is a material circumstance that provides for me the opportunity to light the fuse, but it is not a material circumstance that causes me to light the fuse.....what causes me to light the fuse is a motive that is intentional toward what is not-yet, what not is, what can be, etc. If I light the fuse, it will be because I want the barrel to explode. I want something to "happen" that has not happened. This is what Sartre refers to as the negation of consciousness and its manner of contantly trying to reach being. Consciousness is forever "at the heels of being" but before it: "Consciousness is not what it is and is what it is not."- Sartre

In the smoker's case, had he intended to light the fuse, there would be no determination that he do so. Only his choice of one alternative over another. In either case, he is trying to make something happen that is not "there," that is not yet an object. This is refered to by Sartre as the nihilation of possibilites, which is what choosing essentially is.

Now let's say he pauses and asks himself this question: "did I really choose to light that fuse?" At this point, he begins contemplation in a context of words-- "what does determine mean, what is causality, was Hume correct, what does quantum indeterminacy mean, etc., etc?"

The very same structures apply here as they did before the decision to act, only the freedom is not expressed in action but in thinking. The intentional structures are now epistemological....he is "choosing his way through ideas..."

Furthermore, it is next to nonsensical to merely wonder about freewill and determinism since the majority of the terminology involved is obscure and metaphorical. The real existential conditions of acting are only important here....not the theory of action.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


Wittgenstein says philosophy is the bewitchment of our language

In fact he says:


Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.

[Philosophical Investigations, section 109.]

Which is completely different.

And Epoche, I note you are still using the word 'determined' anthropomorphically.

[Are you still 'bewitched'?]

[Epoche]

Oh this is strange man. Very strange. I was going to say precisely that, RL, but I changed my mind. That the idea determinism is inescapably bound up in anthropomorphical motives; the human being believes himself to "move" objects and to watch things "age." I suppose he would also believe there is an alpha-mover who pushes existence or an alpha-substance that does not age or change. Where is this a priori alpha-thing?

Mystics? This is a question for you. Let's see some good hermetics. [cough]

(I feel like a cheerleader lately, Rosa, contantly agreeing with you. I don't want you to mistake this for weakness, I am not a pet, so let it be known in advance that I am smarter than you, mmkay? And simply because I have agreed with you recently does not mean that we will not engage in the future.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche, smartness has nothing to do with it. :)

After all, some of the best minds in human history have allowed their intelligence to be 'bewitched'.

And, for my ideas, I owe 45% to W, 45% to Marx and all but 1% of the rest to Frege and a few others.

So, it's only a measly 1% to me!

And I know you have your own ideas on a whole range of things; I would not wish it otherwise.

Just as I am sure I am wrong here and there too....!!!

:o

[Although, I am not too sure you have quite grasped the 'anthropomorphic' stuff, yet....]

[Epoche]

And, for my ideas, I owe 45% to W, 45% to Marx and all but 1% of the rest to Frege and a few others.

So, it's only a measly 1% to me!

No, that leaves 9% to you, silly.

[rolls eyes]

[Epoche]

Wait a minute...

Hmm...


I owe 45% to W, 45% to Marx

Alright so far ninety percent is counted for.


and all but 1% of the rest to Frege and a few others.

The "rest" is that ten missing percent. This ten percent can be thought of as one hundred percent by itself. In this case, all but one percent is again ninety percent, that is, ninety percent of the one hundred percent which is the ten left over. So actually you are owed ten percent of the credit....not nine.

Is this correct?

[Bretty123]

You are right Rosa. I messed up the quote thanks for clearing it up for these fellows. I was in too much of a rush so I went by memory.

Epoche: reread what she said, she says that all but 1% is left to her.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche:


The "rest" is that ten missing percent. This ten percent can be thought of as one hundred percent by itself. In this case, all but one percent is again ninety percent, that is, ninety percent of the one hundred percent which is the ten left over. So actually you are owed ten percent of the credit....not nine.

Not if, as Bretty says, you read more carefully:


And, for my ideas, I owe 45% to W, 45% to Marx and all but 1% of the rest to Frege and a few others.

I.e, 9% to Frege, and others. OK??? :)

Bretty, sorry for picking you up, but I did not want people to get the wrong idea about W. :)

[Epoche]

of the rest

Dammit Bretty, pay attention.


of the rest

...is the key word which changes the context. That "rest" is the remaining ten percent since the first ninety percent is given to W and M.

If she didn't say "the rest" then the entire one hundred percent would still be subject and not the left over ten, in which case W and M would get ninety-nine percent when combined and Rosa the remaining one. But she didn't say that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche, get a grip man, it is quite clear not only what I said, but what I meant.

[Epoche]

Yeah you're right. I didn't have to treat the remaining ten percent as one hundred percent since one to ten is the same value as ten to one hundred. What I did was redundent and useless.

Doh!

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 03:34 pm


Furthermore, it is next to nonsensical to merely wonder about freewill and determinism since the majority of the terminology involved is obscure and metaphorical. The real existential conditions of acting are only important here....not the theory of action.
Couldnt agree more.....but that applies to Sartre as much as anyone else. The point I was trying to stay focused on was the appearance of things which makes the original question appear legitimate.

[Epoche]

Yes I know what you are saying. Unfortunately, this issue cannot be avoided in philosophy and if answering the question has any value in politics it will be founded on a philosophy. Civil law is always designed around at least a few ethical "axioms", whether they are true or not is irrelevent, and these axioms are generated in philosophy and logic. And to a greater degree the concept of "freewill" was invented for diplomatic reasons rather than metaphysical reasons. Which is to say that the idea was invented to make "responsibility" an ethical construct. Was this a lie? Nietzsche believes so. If it wasn't, then it was founded on an elaborate constitutional agreement between philosophers and politicans.

In other words, to deal with this question you ask appropriately would mean several volumes of work. But, I know what you are saying and the question can be answered practically without diving into such "metaphysics."

My first choice would be: yes, we are not individuals and society creates us.

My second choice would be: yes, we are individuals and in keeping with Sartrean ontology, we are a freedom incarnate.

Either one requires some kind of metaphysical language to explain and eventually we would get lost in text.