Philosophy Why Individualism is False

King Krávoka

An infection of Your universe.
I was considering a steelman for the legality of adultery, but I can't really come up with anything. In fact banning the absolute brain-melters that are any sort of sexual or romantic connection makes more sense to me.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
I'm telling you how I think your wrong and your telling me I don't see the problem.

By advocating for a liberal stance on adultery, you are imposing your values onto me by the state. Now, I don't see any problem with people imposing their values onto others in the abstract, but you seem to be against this. How do you square that circle?

So if I don't have the values YOU want then I must want total anarchy.....okayyy. Look dude I don't think government should be as big as you want it to be nor do I think it's the governments job to enforce the values you want to enforce, that's it. I'm not roadhog, I'm not the physco from borderlands.

I was referring to your comments about prohibiting murder in Chicago and other big cities.

if that's how you click then you and I belong in two totally different worlds.

Why yes, I'd rather be forced to pay an extra tax and forgo riding on a horse than be murdered by roaming gangs of thugs.

I don't think those were as effective as you think . A LOT of young people were having sex outside of marrige especially by the time the 60s and the 70s came about. You just heard about it more.
Yeah, see, you say that, but there's not a lot of evidence to back that up. Generally speaking, banning things decreases the thing in question.
 
By advocating for a liberal stance on adultery, you are imposing your values onto me by the state. Now, I don't see any problem with people imposing their values onto others in the abstract, but you seem to be against this. How do you square that circle?


oh please, Like I have the clout to make the state enforce my will on you, get real.

I was referring to your comments about prohibiting murder in Chicago and other big cities.

my point is making murder illegal doesin't stop people from murdering and I used those cities as exmples. Just because i'm pointing out that those places are anarchy in spite of the existence of the state doesn't mean i'm for it. As far as defunding the police go, it's kind of hard to defund something that's borderline non-existent except when it comes time to collect a paycheck. Frankly a bunch of merchants with Shotguns would probably do a better job at clearing out crime.

Why yes, I'd rather be forced to pay an extra tax and forgo riding on a horse than be murdered by roaming gangs of thugs.

....I don't know how to begin to respond to that statement. Can you explain all the crapton of issues with the middle east?


Yeah, see, you say that, but there's not a lot of evidence to back that up. Generally speaking, banning things decreases the thing in question.

I'll have to take your word on that considering I can't find any statistics on the subject.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
oh please, Like I have the clout to make the state enforce my will on you, get real.

the stuff you just mentioned are why libertarians wag their fingers to begin because as far as we can see alot of the whole "Oh if only society was like I think it should" is what lead to a lot of these greater evils in the first place.

I don't have a state to enforce my will either, my friend.

🤔

my point is making murder illegal doesin't stop people from murdering and I used those cities as exmples. Just because i'm pointing out that those places are anarchy in spite of the existence of the state doesn't mean i'm for it. As far as defunding the police go, it's kind of hard to defund something that's borderline non-existent except when it comes time to collect a paycheck. Frankly a bunch of merchants with Shotguns would probably do a better job at clearing out crime.

Well, I sort of disagree with you on Chicago and the like. And with you on anarchy?

....I don't know how to begin to respond to that statement. Can you explain all the crapton of issues with the middle east?

I'm not saying that the Middle East is good. I'm just saying it's the lesser of two evils. A bad government is better than no government.

I'll have to take your word on that considering I can't find any statistics on the subject.
Take a look of these articles sometime. This showed that Alcohol Prohibition actually accomplished what it set out to do.


 
I don't have a state to enforce my will either, my friend.

🤔



Well, I sort of disagree with you on Chicago and the like. And with you on anarchy?



I'm not saying that the Middle East is good. I'm just saying it's the lesser of two evils. A bad government is better than no government.


Take a look of these articles sometime. This showed that Alcohol Prohibition actually accomplished what it set out to do.




and I disagree with you. So with that, I think I'll end my part of this conversation. have a good day.
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
I was considering a steelman for the legality of adultery, but I can't really come up with anything. In fact banning the absolute brain-melters that are any sort of sexual or romantic connection makes more sense to me.

Adultery is breach of contract, and a serious one at that. You make a serious commitment to tie your life to someone, one that means they utterly depend on you. And given the courts already adjudicate this contract heavily, it would make sense to treat it like other facets of this contract. Though breach of contract is not illegal in and of itself... So have adultery be a purely civil matter in the court system?
 
Adultery is breach of contract, and a serious one at that. You make a serious commitment to tie your life to someone, one that means they utterly depend on you. And given the courts already adjudicate this contract heavily, it would make sense to treat it like other facets of this contract. Though breach of contract is not illegal in and of itself... So have adultery be a purely civil matter in the court system?
Depending on the way it is phrased, it can be argued that breaching a contract is simply an illegal act that is not punished on it's own by the criminal system. I know some of my contractual law teachers would argue that way at times.
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
Depending on the way it is phrased, it can be argued that breaching a contract is simply an illegal act that is not punished on it's own by the criminal system. I know some of my contractual law teachers would argue that way at times.

That is interesting, it is good to get the opinion of people who actually study the subject. As an irreligious person, I can't invoke the divine or religious commandment, so I look to other grounds for why things should or should not be done. I am against adultery for reasons that follow from what I said above, you betrayed someone who made a serious lifelong (or long-term) commitment to you. Though I may of course be simplifying. I am not sure it should be illegal, but adultery is an immoral act, what some might call adultery but is consenting is either someone being weird, or being weak, or both. So, I would wager that contract law is my preferred way to deal with such things, and of course legal reform so that we actually handle it with the seriousness it deserves.
 

King Krávoka

An infection of Your universe.
Adultery is breach of contract, and a serious one at that. You make a serious commitment to tie your life to someone, one that means they utterly depend on you. And given the courts already adjudicate this contract heavily, it would make sense to treat it like other facets of this contract. Though breach of contract is not illegal in and of itself... So have adultery be a purely civil matter in the court system?
Uuuugh, did you understand what I meant and are you likefarming anyway?
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
Uuuugh, did you understand what I meant and are you likefarming anyway?

No, I am not. And I may have misinterpreted what you said, given there was some ambiguity in the wording. You said something about being unable to make the strongest possible argument for the legal status of it from the opposing side(a steelman argument). So I might have made an error as to what side you were on? Or did I make a different mistake?
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
By "legal" I meant "non-criminality".

Ah, I understand what you meant then. But there is also the question of whether legality and criminality can be separated, and that things can be legal, yet criminal, and as we all known there are things that are not criminal, yet are illegal. And law deals with more than criminality, so I think you can see why I misunderstood before. And really, we could have a whole debate about what I just mentioned in another thread.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
@The Name of Love

Perhaps I'm mis-remembering, but I was under the impression you were a Christian?
Yes, I am a Christian. I'm Roman Catholic. I know some Christians believe that Christianity necessarily entails individualism, but this is incorrect. As I've demonstrated, individualism is false, and none of the views I presented necessitated that I reject any of Christian doctrine.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Yes, I am a Christian. I'm Roman Catholic. I know some Christians believe that Christianity necessarily entails individualism, but this is incorrect. As I've demonstrated, individualism is false, and none of the views I presented necessitated that I reject any of Christian doctrine.

You've demonstrated no such thing. Your argumentation is in ignorance of basic Christian doctrine at very basic levels:


1) The individual cannot exist without society.

This is a "well, duh" objection on the face of it, but it's surprising how many individualists do not consider it. People are born weak and dependent on their parents for survival. From then on, they are dependent on other people in the society to flourish as human beings. Even if they decide to leave this society and live by themselves in the jungle, Robinson Crusoe-style, they will still be forever colored by the society that left them.

Okay, the individualist says, but human beings are more than just their social classes though. Sure, but to what extent? Human beings are thrown into this world colored by various social orders (ethnicity, sex, class, culture, family, etc.) that they do not consent to. Their identities are only made intelligible by participating in these social orders. The individual devoid of these social orders is a mere abstraction. In the words of reactionary philosopher Julius Evola, to place value on the individual over their social orders "is the same as regarding as paramount the bronze found in many statues, rather than seeing each one as the expression of distinct ideas, to which bronze (in our case, the generic human quality) has supplied the working matter (Men Among the Ruins, p. 135). So not only can people not exist without previous societies, not only are people forever colored by the societies they inhabit, their very identities are unintelligible without the societies in question.

This is wrong. The identity of a person is, first and foremost, defined by their relationship with God.

My identity is affected by my relationship with my family. It is affected by my relationship with friends, church, government, and other human institutions.

It is defined by my relationship with God. I am a Beloved Child of God, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made. Man is not an island, but I am not an island because of my relationship with God not my relationship with other men.

Given this is your very first point, and it fails to cohere with Christian theology at the most basic level, the entirety of your argumentation thereafter collapses.


I still read the rest of your post anyways. The entire thing absolutely reeks of arguing against a strawman, and is like many other ideologies that decide they will define for themselves what their opposition believes, then 'prove' their own validity by cutting the legs out from under the strawman of the opposition they have created.

Don't get me wrong. Individualism can be taken too far, and there are some AnCaps and extreme libertarians out there who actually believe things not unlike the sort of Individualism that you have tried to argue against here.

This does not change the fact that your argumentation is just as shoddy and flawed as theirs is.


The healthy take on 'Rugged Individualism' which is upheld as a particularly (though not uniquely) American virtue, teaches something more like the following:

1. Every man's conscience is ultimately between him and God. Others can advise and council, but Jesus is the only intermediary between God and Man, and none can replace another's relationship with God or conscience.
2. It is the responsibility of every man to see to his own needs rather than be dependent upon others. When you are capable of (with God's help) standing on your own two feet, you are then able to help others to their feet.
3. It is right for every man to bear the consequences for his own actions, both good and ill. This does not mean charity is evil, but it does mean that a materilaly unsuccessful man has no ownership of the material success of another man's which he did not contribute to, and a successful man does not *owe* an unsuccessful man an equal share of his bounty.
4. Be generous and gracious to others as God is generous and gracious to us.

It is moral and right for the successful man to help the unsuccessful man learn to be successful. It is moral and right for the wealthy to give charity to those who are genuinely unfortunate. It is not moral to try to compel that of them through force.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
This is wrong. The identity of a person is, first and foremost, defined by their relationship with God.

My identity is affected by my relationship with my family. It is affected by my relationship with friends, church, government, and other human institutions.

It is defined by my relationship with God. I am a Beloved Child of God, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made. Man is not an island, but I am not an island because of my relationship with God not my relationship with other men.

Given this is your very first point, and it fails to cohere with Christian theology at the most basic level, the entirety of your argumentation thereafter collapses.
First, only the Desert Fathers who left their society to live in the desert would have the relationship with God you are saying. They were only able to do this because God supernaturally provided them with everything they needed so they could focus on meditation and prayer. The idea that this is how normal people actually function is ludicrous. Human beings are social animals. We need actual relationships with human beings to define us, else we are incomplete. This is one of the main criticism of individualism that I focused on. The atomization of the individual destroys communities, including religious communities, which has led to the ills that plague us today.

I still read the rest of your post anyways. The entire thing absolutely reeks of arguing against a strawman, and is like many other ideologies that decide they will define for themselves what their opposition believes, then 'prove' their own validity by cutting the legs out from under the strawman of the opposition they have created.

Don't get me wrong. Individualism can be taken too far, and there are some AnCaps and extreme libertarians out there who actually believe things not unlike the sort of Individualism that you have tried to argue against here.

This does not change the fact that your argumentation is just as shoddy and flawed as theirs is.

Some advice: if you accuse someone of a strawman argument, but then utterly fail to provide any examples of strawman arguments being made, that signals that you don't actually have an argument.

The healthy take on 'Rugged Individualism' which is upheld as a particularly (though not uniquely) American virtue, teaches something more like the following:

1. Every man's conscience is ultimately between him and God. Others can advise and council, but Jesus is the only intermediary between God and Man, and none can replace another's relationship with God or conscience.
2. It is the responsibility of every man to see to his own needs rather than be dependent upon others. When you are capable of (with God's help) standing on your own two feet, you are then able to help others to their feet.
3. It is right for every man to bear the consequences for his own actions, both good and ill. This does not mean charity is evil, but it does mean that a materilaly unsuccessful man has no ownership of the material success of another man's which he did not contribute to, and a successful man does not *owe* an unsuccessful man an equal share of his bounty.
4. Be generous and gracious to others as God is generous and gracious to us.

It is moral and right for the successful man to help the unsuccessful man learn to be successful. It is moral and right for the wealthy to give charity to those who are genuinely unfortunate. It is not moral to try to compel that of them through force.

I did not address "rugged individualism" because I don't see how this doesn't lead directly to the extreme individualism I critiqued. For instance, point one leads to the undermining of all earthly authority (and thus, the slow collapse of society). Number two was addressed by my first point: that you can't help be dependent on others, so any attempt at independence must be, at the very least, moderated in light of this fact. Number three is correct but is unnuanced because it ignores the necessity of distributive justice (what if the materially unsuccessful man is like this because he is being economically exploited?).

Three out of four of your points are false, and one of them was addressed by me already!
Congratulations, you've taken a complete strawman of an idea and beaten it to death.

Bravo to you, sir. Bravo.
Some advice: if you accuse someone of a strawman argument, but then utterly fail to provide any examples, that signals that you don't actually have an argument.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
I feel that what's missing here is a clear definition of what is intended by "Individualism". That word has a range of meaning. Please don't assume that we all already know what you mean.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
I feel that what's missing here is a clear definition of what is intended by "Individualism". That word has a range of meaning. Please don't assume that we all already know what you mean.
I used the Encyclopedia Britannica as a guide to individualism. It's word that has encompasses many aspects - some of which I agree with. But call it whatever you like, I still hold that the views I refuted are 1) commonly held by modern people, 2) false, and 3) incredibly destructive as a result of one and two.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top