NationStates

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:00 pm**

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:
EastKekistan wrote:That's incorrect. However you are still a threat by definition because you are a collectivist.

A threat to what?

A threat to any individualist and any collectivist who wants a collective different from yours. By admitting that you are a collectivist you are admitting that you won't leave anyone alone. If this isn't a threat, what is?

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:01 pm**

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:
Prusenreich wrote:Shut up commie

I'm a neofascist to the libs, a commie to the ancaps. What am I actually? Who knows.

Based Centrist

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:02 pm**

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:
EastKekistan wrote:That's incorrect. However you are still a threat by definition because you are a collectivist.

A threat to what?

The individual, I suppose.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:10 pm**

EastKekistan wrote:
Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:A threat to what?

A threat to any individualist and any collectivist who wants a collective different from yours. By admitting that you are a collectivist you are admitting that you won't leave anyone alone. If this isn't a threat, what is?

That's putting words in my mouth.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:27 pm**

Prusenreich wrote:Shut up commie

*** Warning for Flaming ***

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:35 pm**

Individualism is far more romantic than collectivism and as such has much more appeal on paper even if its not all that its cracked up to be in the real world... Its that idea that some sort of pioneer spirit flows through all of us as a result of our ancestors who were typically self made even if they were poor.... The best world is one in which people are individualistic but willing to work with their fellow man to bring about change or projects that will better all individuals... Its not as black and white as you think

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:38 pm**

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:Individualism is far more romantic than collectivism and as such has much more appeal on paper even if its not all that its cracked up to be in the real world... Its that idea that some sort of pioneer spirit flows through all of us as a result of our ancestors who were typically self made even if they were poor.... The best world is one in which people are individualistic but willing to work with their fellow man to bring about change or projects that will better all individuals... Its not as black and white as you think

Romanticism is subjective. I think collectivism has the potential for more beauty than individualism does, even if individualism is more “romantic”. There’s something about working as a community to build something that’s wonderful.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:41 pm**

Just because we can predict the weather doesn't mean we can actually control said force of nature. The same goes for human actions. Predictability doesn't mean we don't have free will or control over what we choose or do.

Individualism is the reason why we as a species advanced as far as we are. Humans outdoing and competing over one another is what creates progress.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:42 pm**

Arkhane wrote:Just because we can predict the weather doesn't mean we can actually control said force of nature. The same goes for human actions. Predictability doesn't mean we don't have free will or control over what we choose or do.

Individualism is the reason why we as a species advanced as far as we are. Humans outdoing and competing over one another is what creates progress.

China advanced far more consistently than the West with collectivism, and now they’re doing it again.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:44 pm**

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:
Arkhane wrote:Just because we can predict the weather doesn't mean we can actually control said force of nature. The same goes for human actions. Predictability doesn't mean we don't have free will or control over what we choose or do.

Individualism is the reason why we as a species advanced as far as we are. Humans outdoing and competing over one another is what creates progress.

China advanced far more consistently than the West with collectivism, and now they’re doing it again.

No they didn't, they were previously communist and collectivist before, the greatness came when they adopted capitalism and started to compete against one another.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:46 pm**

Arkhane wrote:
Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:China advanced far more consistently than the West with collectivism, and now they’re doing it again.

No they didn't, they were previously communist and collectivist before, the greatness came when they adopted capitalism and started to compete against one another.

They invented guns, paper, and built magnificent structures without once having individualism. If you seriously think the West has made China great, you need to read up on Eastern history.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:48 pm**

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:They invented guns, paper, and built magnificent structures without once having individualism. If you seriously think the West has made China great, you need to read up on Eastern history.

I think it's incredibly reductive to suggest that the technological and social advancements in China were caused by collectivism, since China, remaining collectivist fell behind the West.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:49 pm**

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:
Arkhane wrote:
No they didn't, they were previously communist and collectivist before, the greatness came when they adopted capitalism and started to compete against one another.

They invented guns, paper, and built magnificent structures without once having individualism. If you seriously think the West has made China great, you need to read up on Eastern history.

Those inventions were made out of ancient alchemists who competed against one another in an attempt to refine and constantly improve various formulas, recipes and concoctions were a closely guarded secrets as Chinese factions warred against one another. China was not a collectivist nation in the past.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:49 pm**

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:
Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:They invented guns, paper, and built magnificent structures without once having individualism. If you seriously think the West has made China great, you need to read up on Eastern history.

I think it's incredibly reductive to suggest that the technological and social advancements in China were caused by collectivism, since China, remaining collectivist fell behind the West.

It had rises and falls like the west. We just happened to start navigating seriously before they did.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:52 pm**

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:Individualism is far more romantic than collectivism and as such has much more appeal on paper even if its not all that its cracked up to be in the real world... Its that idea that some sort of pioneer spirit flows through all of us as a result of our ancestors who were typically self made even if they were poor.... The best world is one in which people are individualistic but willing to work with their fellow man to bring about change or projects that will better all individuals... Its not as black and white as you think

Nationalism and militarism are romanticism too

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:53 pm**

I think that economic and political individualism has been some of the most environmentally and socially destructive forces on the planet, and for that reason, am in favor of corporatism or guild socialism where voting and other decision making processes happen within a corporate body based around a common occupation. That's the main way I think we'll go forward.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:53 pm**

China had the largest GDP of any country or Empire until the Opium Wars.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:55 pm**

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:It had rises and falls like the west. We just happened to start navigating seriously before they did.

So you agree that saying collectivism caused technological advancements is far too simplistic? Also, what is Zheng He?

Even if the giant treasure ships are a myth, that doesn't negate an impressive naval journey from China to East Africa.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:55 pm**

Al Mumtahanah wrote:China had the largest GDP of any country or Empire until the Opium Wars.

That's even more impressive when you take into account how fragmented the society was, considering that the empire had been conquered by the barbarian Qing a few centuries before.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:58 pm**

Groupthink makes me inclined towards individualism.

To be fair though, I don't think we have to be extreme on either sides.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:00 pm**

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:
Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:It had rises and falls like the west. We just happened to start navigating seriously before they did.

So you agree that saying collectivism caused technological advancements is far too simplistic? Also, what is Zheng He?

Even if the giant treasure ships are a myth, that doesn't negate an impressive naval journey from China to East Africa.

I’m saying that attributing either individualism or collectivism is too simplistic. That was my point, refuting the guy who claimed the West made China great.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:04 pm**

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:I’m saying that attributing either individualism or collectivism is too simplistic. That was my point, refuting the guy who claimed the West made China great.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:China advanced far more consistently than the West with collectivism, and now they’re doing it again.

This was the initial statement that person responded to, so I think I'm excused if I did misinterpret your point.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:07 pm**

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:
Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:I’m saying that attributing either individualism or collectivism is too simplistic. That was my point, refuting the guy who claimed the West made China great.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:China advanced far more consistently than the West with collectivism, and now they’re doing it again.

This was the initial statement that person responded to, so I think I'm excused if I did misinterpret your point.

Fair enough. Consistently doesn’t mean better, it just means more often than not advancing. China certainly changed slower than the West, but it was more or less consistent in its advancements.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:52 pm**

The history of ancient China is actually a very good example of why statism, authoritarianism and collectivism are bad ideas.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:03 am**

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Humans don't have free will

Considering how many times I've had to carefully consider things and only decide after a while, I would doubt that it's the universal truth. It's not too often that I immediately know what to do.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:[*]Believing in free will and asking for choice makes us less happy

Us, or you and Dean Yeong?

Because I am happy that I can choose a product that suits my use, and this feeling makes me more satisfied with the use. And part of what I love about cars is the variety.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:[*]Dualism is dead. There is no evidence that there is a portion of the human mind that exists without connection to the body. Many Christians (who are, in the West, the main proponents of this), even, think this way (hence the importance of the resurrection)

Is it necessary for free will?

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:[*]Given the advancements we are quickly making in the fields of psychology, sociology, neuroscience, and advanced computing, it is not impossible to think that the vast majority of our life choices may, in the future, be able to be predicted by an AI

Key word: in the future.

Also, they will still be individual choices, just like YouTube gives me videos I want to watch, not the average user wants to watch.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:[*]It is because people value the delusion of free will that things like the tragedy of the commons exists

And the opposite makes us think that there is a single one-fits-all solution.

I can't believe how many people believe there is one, given by how many ask me "what is the best car in the world?"

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:[*]It is because people think their choices are free that deceptive advertising is so effective[/list]While I certainly don't think society always has it right, it seems to me that if we continue down the path of unchecked individualism, we will run into issues with our society, our resources, and our own happiness. Perhaps it is better to focus on society as a whole, rather than focus on fighting for "choice" where none really exists. I do not yet have a solution to what this would look like in the West, and I don't pretend to.

We would run into bigger problems without it. Nothing is flawless, but some things are better.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:So, NSG, should we continue to pretend that the individual knows best?

Question as loaded as a revolver with six bullets in it.

NationStates

The Ailments of Individualism