But isn't that what individualism is really about? Expecting society to treat you as a unique individual rather than just another statistic, or cog in the machine?
-
-
Replying to @Noahpinion
No! It is about being yourself, regardless of societal recognition--what kind of individual needs the acknowledgement of society to be himself? And how does establishing a statistical category for you (which you presumably share with others) make you less of a statistic?
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
"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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
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??
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
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)!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Noahpinion
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion @380kmh
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Your guess is correct, that isn't my vision of individualism. I would say that a person's desire for everyone to know their precise sexuality is more revealing of their individual character than that precise sexuality itself
-
-
Replying to @380kmh @Noahpinion
Sort of like if there were a person who wanted everyone to know exactly what house he grew up in, and made a flag for it and everything--this behavior would tell me more about him than the house would.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.