Philosophy Why Individualism is False

[The Name of Love]

I mean, when you blame its passing for all the issues the modern world faces, and suggest that the tech barons of Silicon Valley will make an adequate replacement (very odd given that they aren't exactly well known for being traditionalist or devoutly Catholic, both things which I believe are important to you) it's hard not to think so.

And wow, you expect me to take your critiques seriously, yet you post things like this? When did I say I wanted tech barons of Silicon Valley to become the new aristocrats?

When the fact is that you aren't being proactive in offering your solution to the problem, only pointing out the flaws in the present system of thought or governance before stating it needs to go and when somebody point's out the vast problems that that would cause you say. "Yes, but the way you have been doing it is wrong!" and then when we demand a straight forward answer of what you want exactly or how you plan to achieve it, you sometimes will either ignore the question or flat out admit that you don't know the answer.

Perhaps you are correct. This post is entirely negative: pointing out flaws rather than offering positive alternatives. I posited ideas out there, but I didn't get into specifics, mainly because I don't have the specifics. I'm not offering some kind of political formulation that can be plugged into tomorrow's policy debate. This is just a call to action to let people know that right-wingers need to rethink individualism if they want to oppose state totalitarianism and the moral disintegration of society (which I consider to go hand-in-hand).

I mean, if you want the moderate solution, Robert Nisbet's idea of promoting localism, thick religious communities, and high trust societies would be something any moderate conservative could endorse, and I'd have a hard time finding a flaw in that. I'd be a bit more radical in my solution because I regard social disintegration and state centralization to be a fundamental part of modernity, but a conservative who embraced Robert Nisbet's solutions would basically be able to avoid most of my arguments. I don't think it's that hard, really.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Somewhat off kilter, but on the subject of aristocrats.

Ideally I want an aristocracy that is both super human in its capabilities and in its virtues.

Lust, indiscipline, avarice, dishonesty, and capriciousness would be bred or manipulated out of it. Through either behavioral modification or genetic tinkering.

It would be an aristocracy of virtue, and thus of worthy power.

Its still somewhat in the future, but I do not see why it could not be forged into being.

 

[The Name of Love]

Somewhat off kilter, but on the subject of aristocrats.

Ideally I want an aristocracy that is both super human in its capabilities and in its virtues.

Lust, indiscipline, avarice, dishonesty, and capriciousness would be bred or manipulated out of it. Through either behavioral modification or genetic tinkering.

It would be an aristocracy of virtue, and thus of worthy power.

Its still somewhat in the future, but I do not see why it could not be forged into being.

Hm... I actually have a problem with aristocracies of virtue. Because that's essentially what we have now, if you think about it. Or at least, that's what our modern-day egalitarians have created (since every attempt to destroy formal hierarchies creates informal ones).

Virtue is something that only God can fully see. We as human beings only have the actions and words of others. So everything will revolve around having the appearance of virtue without actually promoting virtue (hypocrisy, in other words). And the way you get ahead is through moral posturing. As Bonald once said, "the goal is to eliminate 10% of one’s competitors who either have too many past statements on record for maneuverability or are too principled to go along with the latest insanity. It’s a game of attack first to be eaten last."

Bonald also points out that the aristocracy of virtue is something that appears in Heaven, and is a large part of what made Christianity appealing. Trying to make Heaven on Earth is going to lead to problems. There is some truth in how aristocrats should embody the noblest qualities and be good, decent people, but at the end of the day, we can't expect them to be "super human."

 

[Deleted member 88]

Bonald also points out that the aristocracy of virtue is something that appears in Heaven, and is a large part of what made Christianity appealing. Trying to make Heaven on Earth is going to lead to problems. There is some truth in how aristocrats should embody the noblest qualities and be good, decent people, but at the end of the day, we can't expect them to be "super human."

That's why I said they ought be genetically engineered.

 

[The Name of Love]

That's why I said they ought be genetically engineered.

You can't genetically engineer virtue though.

 

[The Name of Love]

I'd like to promote this thread for everyone wanting to talk about positive solution.

 

[Navarro]

And wow, you expect me to take your critiques seriously, yet you post things like this? When did I say I wanted tech barons of Silicon Valley to become the new aristocrats?

You literally posted an article suggesting that this is already becoming the case (with a distinctly negative tone, but you seemed to view it as positive), in response to my argument that feudalism makes no sense in the modern technological context. That seems to indicate that you view the tech barons as at least a candidate for the new feudal class (if not a strong one), and given your high opinion of Moldbug who explicitly says that the tech barons should become such ...

Hm... I actually have a problem with aristocracies of virtue. Because that's essentially what we have now, if you think about it. Or at least, that's what our modern-day egalitarians have created (since every attempt to destroy formal hierarchies creates informal ones).

"Aristocracy" literally means "rule by the best", i.e. in the original sense it was a synonym of "meritocracy" ("rule by the meritorious"). In that sense every elite class begins as a meritocracy and ends up devolving into corruption and decadence until a new elite class comes up to take its place. There will be no social structure that lasts forever.

Virtue is something that only God can fully see. We as human beings only have the actions and words of others. So everything will revolve around having the appearance of virtue without actually promoting virtue (hypocrisy, in other words).

As it has been since human history began, more or less? Hypocrisy exists in all social structures, and having a class legally set above the rest has done and will do nothing to quell it.

Somewhat off kilter, but on the subject of aristocrats.

Ideally I want an aristocracy that is both super human in its capabilities and in its virtues.

Lust, indiscipline, avarice, dishonesty, and capriciousness would be bred or manipulated out of it. Through either behavioral modification or genetic tinkering.

It would be an aristocracy of virtue, and thus of worthy power.

Its still somewhat in the future, but I do not see why it could not be forged into being.

So you want angels to govern men? That's never going to happen in historical time.

 

[The Name of Love]

You literally posted an article suggesting that this is already becoming the case (with a distinctly negative tone, but you seemed to view it as positive), in response to my argument that feudalism makes no sense in the modern technological context. That seems to indicate that you view the tech barons as at least a candidate for the new feudal class (if not a strong one), and given your high opinion of Moldbug who explicitly says that the tech barons should become such ...

No, I don't think it's a positive thing that tech oligarchs are going to create neo-feudalism. You misread what I wrote.

 

[Navarro]

No, I don't think it's a positive thing that tech oligarchs are going to create neo-feudalism. You misread what I wrote.

Oh you of little imagination. The more interesting question is this: would 1215 with iPods be better than 2020 with iPods? If not, why not? See, we aren't talking about technological advancement, we're talking about ideology and politics. Feudalism in the modern world would be very different from its thirteenth-century counterpart.

This is literally you responding to me saying that technological advances helped to end the era of feudalism and feudalism would have to destroy or restrict access to modern technology to rise again. You try and reassure me that the feudalism of 2020 would be different from the feudalism of 1215 ... linking an article warning that tech barons are on their way to becoming a feudal aristocracy.

It's not hard to connect the dots.

I mean, if you want the moderate solution, Robert Nisbet's idea of promoting localism, thick religious communities, and high trust societies would be something any moderate conservative could endorse, and I'd have a hard time finding a flaw in that. I'd be a bit more radical in my solution because I regard social disintegration and state centralization to be a fundamental part of modernity, but a conservative who embraced Robert Nisbet's solutions would basically be able to avoid most of my arguments. I don't think it's that hard, really.

Your policy positions are like a shopping list for traits of the opposite of a high-trust society:

High trust and low trust societies - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mechanisms and institutions that are corrupted, dysfunctional, or absent in low-trust societies include respect for private property rights, a trusted civil court system, democratic voting and acceptance of electoral outcomes, and voluntary tax payment

But yes, Nisbet's ideas do sound appealing.

 

[The Name of Love]

This is literally you responding to me saying that technological advances helped to end the era of feudalism and feudalism would have to destroy or restrict access to modern technology to rise again. You try and reassure me that the feudalism of 2020 would be different from the feudalism of 1215 ... linking an article warning that tech barons are on their way to becoming a feudal aristocracy.

It's not hard to connect the dots.

What I was actually saying in that quote that you have misinterpreted accidentally is 1) you are conflating technological progress with political progress and 2) even if I did want feudalism (which I don't!), it doesn't necessitate returning to medieval standards of technology, as the article about neo-feudalism demonstrates. Those are the actual dots I was trying to get you to connect, but somehow, this got lost in translation, possibly because you saw me as someone who wants a society to have the "traits of the opposite of a high-trust society" or who thinks that a campy comic book supervillain that is using an alien robot army to invade Earth is actually the good guy or some other ridiculous idea. It'd be like me complaining that you're some kind of frothing at the mouth anarcho-communist or saying that you think the Joker is actually a good guy.

 

[Scottty]

You can't genetically engineer virtue though.

Why not?
I can myself come up with arguments for that claim, but I'd like to see yours. Just a bald statement like that is not enough.

 

[The Name of Love]

Why not?
I can myself come up with arguments for that claim, but I'd like to see yours. Just a bald statement like that is not enough.

Because virtue is something acquired through habitual practice, and it's not some exact quantitative thing one can measure either.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Because virtue is something acquired through habitual practice, and it's not some exact quantitative thing one can measure either.

Okay why can’t we through behavioral modification engineer people to be kind, loving, generous, far sighted, etc...

Behavioral modification in the psychiatric sense is just accelerated habit forming anyway.

 

[Navarro]

and 2) even if I did want feudalism (which I don't!),

You say you don't want to return to it, and you blame its end for all modern ills and cast it as an "usurpation" (which is used to denote an illegitimate transfer of power) by an alliance of power-seeking kings and the merchant class. Stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth and dancing around what you actually believe.

possibly because you saw me as someone who wants a society to have the "traits of the opposite of a high-trust society"

You want to end democracy and drastically restrict property rights. Those are two of the factors that create a low-trust society.

or who thinks that a campy comic book supervillain that is using an alien robot army to invade Earth is actually the good guy or some other ridiculous idea.

Given that you spent an entire thread on the American Revolution arguing that rulers are owed a kind of absolute subservience by those they rule no matter how tyrannical or arbitrary their actions are (or how correct their religious beliefs are) ...

I mean, Loki's goal in the movie is to demolish modern liberal-capitalistic society so he can rule Earth as a vassal of sorts to Thanos - he makes that pretty clear in his speech.

It'd be like me complaining that you're some kind of frothing at the mouth anarcho-communist or saying that you think the Joker is actually a good guy.

I mean, if I had run around spouting anarcho-communist doctrine using rhetoric similar to that the Joker uses, you would have a point.

 

[Deleted member 88]

@The Name of Love

It would probably look better on you if you just bluntly said what we all know you believe.

Rather than this silly game of dancing around it and forcing us to try and pin your words on you.

 

[The Name of Love]

You say you don't want to return to it, and you blame its end for all modern ills and cast it as an "usurpation" (which is used to denote an illegitimate transfer of power) by an alliance of power-seeking kings and the merchant class. Stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth and dancing around what you actually believe.

It was, objectively speaking, an usurpation. You can support it or reject it, but it was what it was. An objective analysis of what happened indicates that liberalism was the result of a power grab. That's a different topic from whether or not it was a good thing or not.

You want to end democracy and drastically restrict property rights. Those are two of the factors that create a low-trust society.

So, do you believe that a society where everyone votes on everything and people have unlimited freedom over their property (a la minarchist libertarianism) would be the ideal, high-trust society? Certainly, you don't. Certainly, there must be diminishing returns.

@The Name of Love

It would probably look better on you if you just bluntly said what we all know you believe.

Rather than this silly game of dancing around it and forcing us to try and pin your words on you.

I'm someone who is still searching. I have some broad outlines of what I'd like, I have a few policy ideas that I think would be implemented if liberal democracy worked as intended (like pornography prohibition), but I don't have the equivalent to Das Kapital written out yet. Is that so difficult to understand?

Perhaps I can start with how I view things.

First things first, I'm an Aristotelian-Thomist. I believe that philosophy begins with the assumption that "everything in the intellect was first in the senses." That is to say, if we have it in the intellect, it's because we experienced it in some fashion or we derived it from our senses via intellectual abstraction. From there, you derive ideas like act and potency, hylemorphism, teleology, and other metaphysical concepts. These concepts then influence my philosophy of nature, my epistemology, my theology, and my ethics.

I'm also a Roman Catholic. I strongly believe in the Church and its traditions. I believe that everything in Catholicism can be justified through the proper interpretation of Scripture. I believe that a proper relationship between God and Man is necessary for men to be fulfilled qua men, and that theosis (friendship with God) is the ultimate telos of man. I also believe in a loose idea of Integralism, in the sense that all institutions ought to be subordinate to the pursuit of theosis. Because of my Catholicism, I'm naturally skeptical of Enlightenment philosophies, though I'm open to reconciling the Catholic-friendly parts of their philosophies to themselves.

I am a tentative follower of The Neo-Absolutist School, which is probably the main reason for this particular thread. I reject all philosophies that claim that there exists some individual anterior to society (this is what I take to be one of the core aspects of individualist philosophies). I believe there is a great deal of truth in Sir Robert Filmer's five points of absolutist ontology. I also share their admiration for thinkers like Bertrand de Jouvenal and Alasdair MacIntyre. However, I'm still researching the ideas within this school, trying to parse out what I agree with from what I don't, what needs to be improved from where I should change my mind.

Do you require further elaboration? Or do you understand where I'm coming from?

 

[Doomsought]

Individualism places the Atom of moral responsibility on the individual. To reject it, you must either grant moral responsibility to groups and assign group punishment, or grant moral responsibility to parts of the human body.

The former has been tried before, with many different types of group being assigned as the atom, from the family unit to entire races. It can be disproven from first principles graphically.

The latter leads to the use of drugs and lobotomy for "Justice".

 

[The Name of Love]

Individualism places the Atom of moral responsibility on the individual. To reject it, you must either grant moral responsibility to groups and assign group punishment, or grant moral responsibility to parts of the human body.

The former has been tried before, with many different types of group being assigned as the atom, from the family unit to entire races. It can be disproven from first principles graphically.

The latter leads to the use of drugs and lobotomy for "Justice".

Your argument is:

If you reject liberalism, then you must reject the idea that individuals have moral responsibility.

Why should I accept this? Why can I not reject individualism and still hold that individuals have moral responsibility? Do you have an argument for this, or is this you creating a false dichotomy between individualism and collectivism?

 

[Doomsought]

Why should I accept this? Why can I not reject individualism and still hold that individuals have moral responsibility? Do you have an argument for this, or is this you creating a false dichotomy between individualism and collectivism?

There can only be one atom of moral responsibility. There is not false dichotomy, individualism and collectivism are mutually exclusive, and I even provided you with the third alternative.

 

[The Name of Love]

There can only be one atom of moral responsibility. There is not false dichotomy, individualism and collectivism are mutually exclusive, and I even provided you with the third alternative.

I believe that this post talks about the relationship people should have with the state.

As social animals, we come into the world not as individualist atoms having no need for or obligations toward others, but rather as members of communities – the family first and foremost, but also the local community, the nation, and ultimately the human race as a whole. As rational animals, we require a considerable range of freedom of thought and action in order to realize the ends toward which we are directed by our nature, including our social ends.

Solidarity and subsidiarity balance these considerations. As organic parts of larger social wholes, our flourishing as individuals goes hand in hand with that of those larger wholes, just as the flourishing of a part of the body goes hand in hand with that of the whole organism. The eye or the foot can flourish only if the whole body does, and the whole body can flourish only insofar as parts like the eye and foot do. Just as these parts must do their part relative to the whole body, so too must the individual do his part relative to the family, the nation, etc. And just as the whole organism must guarantee the health of its parts, so too do larger social orders have an obligation to each individual member. Solidarity thus rules out a libertarian or individualist model on which we have no obligations to others other than those we consent to. That would be like the eye or foot having no natural ordering to the good of the body as a whole, or the body as a whole having no natural ordering to the good of these parts.

On the other hand, given our rationality, the organic analogy is not a perfect one. Each of us has a capacity for individual thought and action that literal body parts do not have, and which entails that we are more than mere cells or organs of a larger social body. Literal body parts cannot understand themselves and their relation to the whole body, or choose whether and how to fulfill their roles relative to the whole. We can do so, and to flourish as rational agents we thus require as much freedom of thought and action as is consistent with our need for and obligations to larger social orders. There is also the consideration that the organic analogy is stronger the more proximate is the social whole of which one is a part. Our needs and obligations relative to the family are stronger than our needs and obligations relative to the nation, and our needs and obligations relative to the nation are stronger than our needs and obligations relative to humanity as a whole. Hence the natural law model entails a special regard for family and nation over the “global community,” even if the latter deserves some regard as well. Subsidiarity thus rules out any socialist absorption of the individual into a communal blob. It also requires that larger level social orders (such as governments) interfere with the actions of lower level orders (such as families and individuals) only where strictly necessary. The presumption is in favor of freedom of action, even if this presumption can in some cases be overridden.

The kind of individualism that I rail against is not one that merely says "individuals have moral responsibility." Rather, individualism denies that the individual has moral responsibilities to the collective. That, by virtue of his individuality, he has no reason to help the wider society. This would follow from the kinds of ethical theories espoused by people like Adam Smith, who cynically said "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." I feel that the modern conservatives, in embracing this "rugged individualism," have either forgotten or tend to overlook their duty to pursue the common good. Individualism has this problem because, given its Lockean premises, it assumes that rational individuals came together to form society out of self-interest. This creates in the mind the thought of "If society doesn't fulfill my desires, then to hell with society!" If you are an individualist and you rightfully see this view as abhorrently self-centered, then you ought to re-examine your own beliefs. I did.

I also don't see why both individual persons and collectives (in the form of moral persons) can't both have moral duties in different areas. Might we imagine a scenario where the collective has a duty to X (say, a duty to help the poorest of society) while the individual has a duty to Y (such as, the duty to take responsibility for their own actions)?