Philosophy/Theory Thread.
- 主题发起人 AreJohn
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Something Awful. He's referring to Lowtax.
Swissky
I was thinking, was Socialist movements popular among the Jewish population throughout the 19th and 20th Century in Central and Eastern Europe due to the restrictions set on them by the Pale of Settlement and as a result of it (the pale) by Jews living outside of it? As in that they used the pale as an example of why society has to reform and modernise? I'm sure some would see this as some sort of populism but seeing as it is completely logical with actual ground and the pale being openly oppressive, I would dismiss calling it such.
Just some thoughts on Western culture in general. Could it be that the individualism in our culture is harmful in some ways? Arguably this very same individualism is part of what made European civilization so successful in the last few hundred years (although that's a contentious point to say the least), but are there downsides to it?
When trying to motivate and encourage people we tend to emphasize their uniqueness, rather than encouraging them to think of themselves as part of something greater. Everyone's a special snowflake, it's almost a point of controversy to imply anything different. Lately I've been thinking that with all the billions of people living, there's bound to be many people who are very similar to any given person. Although like snowflakes, there are no two human beings who are exactly identical if you examine them closely enough, those differences could be microscopic and not really worth mentioning. Many of the things that make a human being unique are caused by their environment, no doubt there's some Chinese guy who could have ended up very similar to me if we'd swapped brains at birth. Back to my original question, aren't we just making people feel more isolated the more we make them feel that there's no one else like them? Aren't humans naturally inclined to seek to fit into a group?
This is of course supposing that it's relevant to speak of individualist and collectivist societies, I think that the former at least fits well for our own culture (of most forumites I mean). There's also no denying that many societies that are often described as collectivist (far eastern nations for example) have their fair share of social problems, depression and suicide. No idea how one thing relates to the other, that's why I'm asking and not trying to form some sort of hypothesis on my own.
When trying to motivate and encourage people we tend to emphasize their uniqueness, rather than encouraging them to think of themselves as part of something greater. Everyone's a special snowflake, it's almost a point of controversy to imply anything different. Lately I've been thinking that with all the billions of people living, there's bound to be many people who are very similar to any given person. Although like snowflakes, there are no two human beings who are exactly identical if you examine them closely enough, those differences could be microscopic and not really worth mentioning. Many of the things that make a human being unique are caused by their environment, no doubt there's some Chinese guy who could have ended up very similar to me if we'd swapped brains at birth. Back to my original question, aren't we just making people feel more isolated the more we make them feel that there's no one else like them? Aren't humans naturally inclined to seek to fit into a group?
This is of course supposing that it's relevant to speak of individualist and collectivist societies, I think that the former at least fits well for our own culture (of most forumites I mean). There's also no denying that many societies that are often described as collectivist (far eastern nations for example) have their fair share of social problems, depression and suicide. No idea how one thing relates to the other, that's why I'm asking and not trying to form some sort of hypothesis on my own.
Individualism is edgy enlightenment bollocks, end of thread.
Really though, individualism in europe and america is only around because of the de-emphasis of the family unit during the rise of capitalism. Ironically the first people to become part of the industrial revolution in many places were unmarried women, because their identities were otherwise shaped entirely around their family and they had no economic freedom. Then you have the rise of advertising which achieves the same thing, emphasising people as individuals because material desires are individualistic rather than collective. I reckon a lot of the "special snowflake" culture has its origins there.
Even nowadays in western society, individualism isn't the norm for a lot of people. It depends how much you distance yourself from your parents (and how much that is even possible). A lot of people move hundreds of miles away from their parents when they get a new house, but where that isn't possible, people who still rely on their parents (or vice versa) for monetary or social support will tend to behave more like a collective than a bunch of individuals. It all depends on circumstance, from what I can tell, and someone who grows up in a confucian collectivist hellhole like singapore is just as likely to become an enlightened, euphoric, self-defined person if they don't have family or friendship ties.
On a larger level, stuff like nationalism and racism (the actual definition of racism, i.e. defining people by race) is the "bigger picture" many people see themselves as part of. And those exist almost everywhere.
Really though, individualism in europe and america is only around because of the de-emphasis of the family unit during the rise of capitalism. Ironically the first people to become part of the industrial revolution in many places were unmarried women, because their identities were otherwise shaped entirely around their family and they had no economic freedom. Then you have the rise of advertising which achieves the same thing, emphasising people as individuals because material desires are individualistic rather than collective. I reckon a lot of the "special snowflake" culture has its origins there.
Even nowadays in western society, individualism isn't the norm for a lot of people. It depends how much you distance yourself from your parents (and how much that is even possible). A lot of people move hundreds of miles away from their parents when they get a new house, but where that isn't possible, people who still rely on their parents (or vice versa) for monetary or social support will tend to behave more like a collective than a bunch of individuals. It all depends on circumstance, from what I can tell, and someone who grows up in a confucian collectivist hellhole like singapore is just as likely to become an enlightened, euphoric, self-defined person if they don't have family or friendship ties.
On a larger level, stuff like nationalism and racism (the actual definition of racism, i.e. defining people by race) is the "bigger picture" many people see themselves as part of. And those exist almost everywhere.
My last name has 13 characters. Now that's prestigious. Short names are for the proletariat.
Ambalon
Marquis
Alright mister Abcdefghijklm.
Pedro de Alcântara Francisco António João Carlos Xavier de Paula Miguel Rafael Joaquim José Gonzaga Pascoal Cipriano Serafim de Bragança e Bourbon
Pedro de Alcântara João Carlos Leopoldo Salvador Bibiano Francisco Xavier de Paula Leocádio Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga de Bragança e Bourbon
Pedro de Alcântara João Carlos Leopoldo Salvador Bibiano Francisco Xavier de Paula Leocádio Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga de Bragança e Bourbon
An essay on why the banepost outlived the loss edit, despite them being fundamentally identical in initial purpose and implementation.
http://crouchingrooster.com/2015/11/26/bane-loss-and-phylogeny
http://crouchingrooster.com/2015/11/26/bane-loss-and-phylogeny
