The Ailments of Individualism

[Kowani]

Laughs in reality.

Well, I would rather have a dead world than a collectivistic one.

Any cat knows reality better than all collectivists.

Except, you know…the very existence of any society is inherently collectivism, the only difference is that of degree.

[EastKekistan]

Well, I would rather have a dead world than a collectivistic one.

Any cat knows reality better than all collectivists.

Ironically to state this is to demonstrate that your beliefs have been chosen for you as opposed to being the product of individual thought processes.

Not really. I'm a rebel who disagrees with almost everyone else.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Ironically to state this is to demonstrate that your beliefs have been chosen for you as opposed to being the product of individual thought processes.

Not really. I'm a rebel who disagrees with almost everyone else.

Nazbol Gang?

But seriously, being contrarian doesn't make you "cool" or "original". It just makes a boring conversation.

[EastKekistan]

Well, I would rather have a dead world than a collectivistic one.

Any cat knows reality better than all collectivists.

Except, you know…the very existence of any society is inherently collectivism, the only difference is that of degree.

I prefer full freedom. If not feasible I want to be as free as I can.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Except, you know…the very existence of any society is inherently collectivism, the only difference is that of degree.

I prefer full freedom. If not feasible I want to be as free as I can.

"Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before; and God will call the past to account."

[EastKekistan]

I prefer full freedom. If not feasible I want to be as free as I can.

"Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before; and God will call the past to account."

Are you religious?

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

"Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before; and God will call the past to account."

Are you religious?

No, I just enjoy Ecclesiastes. The point being, there aren't any original thoughts. Recombinations of old thoughts, certainly, but nothing new.

[Kowani]

Because clearly, that’s the way to go. Drug Dealers need someone to deal to, and ignoring the root cause of the drugs because the people that are being sold to have “different genes” is just plain bad policy. Beyond that, what the fuck are you talking about, “integrity of genes?”

What "root cause" of the drugs? Assume the drug is part of their trabalistic culture. What are you going to do about that?

I would point out that there is no culture without drug usage. The difference is in access and societal standard of acceptability.

By "integrity," I mean homogeneity. Collectivism works better when you don't have division within the native demographic.

Ah, yeah, no. Or rather, unfeasible.

[Kowani]

Except, you know…the very existence of any society is inherently collectivism, the only difference is that of degree.

I prefer full freedom. If not feasible I want to be as free as I can.

Full Freedom, regardless of feasibility, is impossible.

[EastKekistan]

Are you religious?

No, I just enjoy Ecclesiastes. The point being, there aren't any original thoughts. Recombinations of old thoughts, certainly, but nothing new.

Where are the old thoughts from then?

Original thoughts of course exist. People inflate their amount but they certainly exist.

[EastKekistan]

Moreover this topic should belong to the authoritarian thread.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

No, I just enjoy Ecclesiastes. The point being, there aren't any original thoughts. Recombinations of old thoughts, certainly, but nothing new.

Where are the old thoughts from then?

Original thoughts of course exist. People inflate their amount but they certainly exist.

People who used to exist. The issue is, can you separate something truly new from something constructed from other things? I'd say not, so then nothing you make is actually new. There's a vast range of options about what to think about, but you're limited by your hermeneutic situation.

[EastKekistan]

Where are the old thoughts from then?

Original thoughts of course exist. People inflate their amount but they certainly exist.

People who used to exist. The issue is, can you separate something truly new from something constructed from other things? I'd say not, so then nothing you make is actually new. There's a vast range of options about what to think about, but you're limited by your hermeneutic situation.

That's an absurd view. Even incremental improvement is still improvement.

[Kowani]

Where are the old thoughts from then?

Original thoughts of course exist. People inflate their amount but they certainly exist.

People who used to exist. The issue is, can you separate something truly new from something constructed from other things? I'd say not, so then nothing you make is actually new. There's a vast range of options about what to think about, but you're limited by your hermeneutic situation.

There might not be new thoughts, but there are new microphones.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

People who used to exist. The issue is, can you separate something truly new from something constructed from other things? I'd say not, so then nothing you make is actually new. There's a vast range of options about what to think about, but you're limited by your hermeneutic situation.

That's an absurd view. Even incremental improvement is still improvement.

I suppose that's so. Even then, we're limited by the ability to know. For example, the Big Bang Theory was new once, but it only was thought of because of evidence for it. No evidence for it would likely have meant nobody would have thought it to be the case.

[Trinitarium]

What "root cause" of the drugs? Assume the drug is part of their trabalistic culture. What are you going to do about that?

I would point out that there is no culture without drug usage. The difference is in access and societal standard of acceptability.

By "integrity," I mean homogeneity. Collectivism works better when you don't have division within the native demographic.

Ah, yeah, no. Or rather, unfeasible.

Okay. And I have nothing in common with those cultures different than mine. So if I restrict the drugs of their choice in my society, and they still choose my society, I'm fine with them facing consequences. That says nothing of root causes, so what is your point?

And you offer no argument that says homogeneity positively effects collective policies. Unfeasible how?

[EastKekistan]

That's an absurd view. Even incremental improvement is still improvement.

I suppose that's so. Even then, we're limited by the ability to know. For example, the Big Bang Theory was new once, but it only was thought of because of evidence for it. No evidence for it would likely have meant nobody would have thought it to be the case.

Yes, so what? We aren't slaves of ancient people.

[EastKekistan]

I am implying neither of the western concepts of fascism and communism are the way forward. By focusing on society as a whole, I mean that we should stop focusing on neoliberal values like "liberty", which have no basis in science, and instead focus on a more holistic approach to policy, taking into account not what people want, but what would make them happy.

I think there is merit in this, but holistic should be defined, and happiness justified.

I mean, practically speaking, why should I care about the pot-smoking minority drug dealer/gas station attendent in the seedy part of town? He has nothing in common with me except his humanity, and that only guarantees him a right to be protected by the police and the second amendment. I don't care about any other aspect of his survival.

And why should I? He is not representative of my beliefs or my people.

You can have collectivism, but it must be chosen on the basis of genes. Protect the integrity of genes and you can have all the collective policies you like, really.

Even that doesn't work because the majority of an ethnic group or race often share non-genetic features. For example not all Arabs are Muslim but most are. Where shall non-Muslim Arabs go? They can't fit into either Arab ethnostates or non-Arab ethnostates.

This is why we need space colonization so that every group of weirdos, if sufficiently capable, can form their own community.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

I suppose that's so. Even then, we're limited by the ability to know. For example, the Big Bang Theory was new once, but it only was thought of because of evidence for it. No evidence for it would likely have meant nobody would have thought it to be the case.

Yes, so what? We aren't slaves of ancient people.

We're slave to reality, to the limits of our minds, and to our past.

[EastKekistan]

Yes, so what? We aren't slaves of ancient people.

We're slave to reality, to the limits of our minds, and to our past.

We aren't. If everything terminally sucks I would rather see some rogue AI destroy everything so that it will cease to suck.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

We're slave to reality, to the limits of our minds, and to our past.

We aren't. If everything terminally sucks I would rather see some rogue AI destroy everything so that it will cease to suck.

You seem to be conflating "I don't want this" with "This isn't true".

[EastKekistan]

We aren't. If everything terminally sucks I would rather see some rogue AI destroy everything so that it will cease to suck.

You seem to be conflating "I don't want this" with "This isn't true".

I'm not. We can change reality. Hence we aren't slaves to it.

[Heloin]

We're slave to reality, to the limits of our minds, and to our past.

We aren't. If everything terminally sucks I would rather see some rogue AI destroy everything so that it will cease to suck.

What the hell are either of you talking about? What does this have to do with individualism?

[EastKekistan]

(deleted)

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

You seem to be conflating "I don't want this" with "This isn't true".

I'm not. We can change reality. Hence we aren't slaves to it.

Can we change reality, or are we part of reality? Can we make any change that would not have occurred without our supposed free will? If so, what?