Wait, was it not serious? I thought it was cool.
-
-
It's like trying to show how unique you are by telling people what town you grew up in--something which ipso facto lumps you in with everyone else in that town. If I choose to get more specific, say, my street, the problem still stands
-
But the town you grew up in, and the street, are important parts of what make you a unique individual.
-
So are your parents, so are your hobbies, so are the people you talked to and the places you went--and moreover, the same towns and streets produce very different individuals. So it ends up being a parody of individualism to act as though your uniqueness depends on...
-
...one of these factors in particular, and on everyone else knowing that about you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"what kind of individual needs the acknowledgement of society to be himself?" <-- all of em, last I checked "how does establishing a statistical category for you make you less of a statistic?" <-- the finer the gradations the less you get lumped in
-
On the first point, it's clear we have very different concepts of what constitutes individuality. On the second, when you go by categories you still think of the category, and not the person--it *erases* distinction within the category.
-
I mean, anyone can think "I'm unique, I'm an individual!" You could think that in Russia in 1935, or China in 1972. Is that all you mean by "individuality"? People's self-concept??
-
Not just their self-concept, but their lives, their interests, their genes, etc etc...are you saying there were no individuals in Russia or China during those times? That if society doesn't know or recognize some aspect of my personality, that it doesn't exist?
-
I'm saying, it would be utter bullshit to call those societies individualistic simply because people could think of themselves as individuals. I want an individualistic society, not just a personal ethos of individualism (which I already have, thanks very much)!
-
But what made those societies not-individualistic was the degree to which so many of their members saw their sense of self through the lens of membership in the group--your argument is they would be more individualistic if there were hundreds of little independent USSRs instead
-
I don't think we have evidence about how many people in those societies saw themselves through the lens of membership in the group. I'm guessing it's high, but the point is, no matter what it was, those societies didn't *recognize* individualism.
-
I could be wrong, but I feel like your vision of "individualism" is something along the lines of "shut up and go feel like an individual by yourself, and if you want to interact with society you have to do so as part of the big group"...which isn't how I see individualism.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.