This board seems to be the best place to discuss philosophy so Sup Forums

This board seems to be the best place to discuss philosophy so Sup Forums


Can you be a collectivist and a individualist?

Want the best for the collective group without sacrificing your individuality? if you believe you can only be one or the other, you are basically a sociopath or a psychopath. Would it mean you do not want the best for everyone as long as that gain isn't at your own unwilling expense? Is it not natural to want the best for everyone as long as it does not come at your own expense?

>Can you be a collectivist and a individualist?
Of course... if you're a dictator.

Saying psychopath as it is a bad thing.

Psychopaths are a bad thing, humans are pack animals, we can't survive on our own, which is why you go crazy if you're left along long enough.

We're all the dictators of our own lifes and subjects to societies will

> subjects to societies will
No, fuck you. Down with the crown.

Yes
>proof of concept:
Every single team sport.

this is why I hate all human
to survive in their fake and pretend society
I must sell myself my dream and my soul
fuck Eudaimonia

Everything people do is for them selfes it not bad it is how it is.
Psychopaths see it.
You are no better or gooder than a psychopath but they atleast know better.

Being a part of a tight-knit group (a collective) actually highlights people's individual traits. Contrary to what some believe, ideas and arguments are more openly shared the closer the relations are. That is what a strong collective results in strong individuality, if you ask me.

Striving for individualism leads to looser ties to others, which paradoxically results in heavier demands of conformity. The strong individualism of modern world is part reason why sheep seem so alike each other.

Agreed.

Good post, what sports team do you follow?

What is your dream?

Wrong, I've done many things in my life that i've done selflessly, not because i'm a saint but because I genuinely like people

>Is it not natural to want the best for everyone as long as it does not come at your own expense?

No. It is not. It is natural to want the best first for yourself, then your family, then your tribe, then your country. Likewise a person who is not a complete individual who has their needs met first will be of little benefit to their family, tribe or country.

A person will always seek their own benefit and don't include actions taken for their children as for the child's benefit, it is the benefit of the individual that their children grow to support them in their old age.

Corruption is unavoidable and can only be mitigated when harnessed by devising systems that allow a person to help themselves in way that secondarily benefit others more than they harm them. This is why socialism and communism ultimately fail, when a person works for no adequate benefit of their own productivity and quality is lost as people do the bare minimum to avoid punishment. When a person works for themselves they will often work more than the bare minimum to survive.

>tfw graduating college today
>getting a computing degree
>know tons of shit about Networking, Sys admin, programming, etc
>only took one philosophy class
>still feel retarded because I sometimes can't keep up with even basic philosophical concepts

Did I fuck up, or is this normal? I wouldn't change my major for anything, but I don't feel "smart".

Yes because you like them you want them to like you back you want to spend time with them you like to spend time with them.
Can you see it now there is no selfless action.
You manipulate others and lie to youre selfe saying you are good. Atleast psychopats ar honest to them selfes.

>This board seems to be the best place to discuss philosophy
lmao
Sup Forums is Sup Forums 2.0

I think the extreme ends of both are indefensible morally. In western society, collectivism inevitably degrades into utilitarianism, a philosophy that leads to 'no-harm principle' 'everything-is-permitted' type societies, mass migrations, and a complete subjugation of the individual by the state. On the other hand, excessive individuality in western societies degrades into hedonism; for a bit of historical evidence, just look at the prim proper values of the early roman republic vs. the late roman empire.

To borrow a bit from Aristotle, I definitely think there's a golden mean between the two where we still celebrate and embrace individuality but give up portions of our radical freedom for the good of the whole.

Honestly, no meming here, voluntary societies and exchanges are better than forced one's. I can't speak for other countries, but the best policy approach for the United States in regards to this issue is to bring about a complete restoration of States rights and freedom of association.

You can study this stuff on your own desu.

Yeah I guess that is the plan, I think it's my fault for thinking I would leave college as this super philosophical individual as well as a STEM robot.

But thats just not true, I do things for strangers who I know i'll never see again before. you seem quite bitter at life

Strengthen the individual.

Yes you do things you think are right things to do. Still you do it for youre selfe. You do what you think is right because you dont want to do what you think is wrong.
Also it may make you feel good again why you do it.
Also as i sad its not bad it is how it is.

You do what you think is right because of moral conviction, not because you want to feel good.

If someone gave me the choice to save 2000 people or 2001 people, i'd pick 2001 because it saved more people, I wouldn't be happy, because 2000 people died.

/his/ is full of degenerate leftist scum. Why do you think OP posted this here?

I said may make you feel good.
But if you do somethink that you think is bad you will feel bad that is why you dont do it.
So you do what you think is a fine thing to do.
There are no good actions there are only bad and regular actions.
What is bad and what is regular it depends on you.

>n-n-not true
t. stupid sheep who repeatedly sells their body for highest bidder

A golden mean between the two is where I'd fall in too. A strong collective produces strong individuals.

I think this type of ''altruism'' is just a thing that got hard-wired into us during our evolutionary history as we were part of a tribe. In a tribe, it's quite likely you are helping someone that either is related to you or is associated with your relative, so it never was truly against individual's interest to not help someone if they could. Also helping increased social status and made you friends/allies, people actually remembered and saw when you did good for others.

In modern mass-society, helping complete strangers is just a sign of our evolutionary history. It's not worth the energy, and nobody will know that you did it unless you tell about it to everyone. And we all love people that like to remind of their generosity all the time.

Individualism is the belief that a person has the sovereign right to decide what actions they take.

Collectivism says the group should decide how people act.

There's nothing contradictory about individualists acting together towards a common goal.

Balance is key, as it always is.

You can be a collectivist and help others, which in turn helps yourself be improving your surroundings. However, sacrificing yourself for the collective in part destroys the collective, as you are part of it.

You can be an individualist by helping yourself, and your self-improvement will help others. However, sacrificing others to help yourself in part destroys yourself, as you are also a part of the others.

Hence "Love Thy Neighbor as Yourself".

History of western philosophy volume 1

John Locke second treatise on civil government chapter 3/4

The prince

The protocols of the elders of Zion

Mein kampf

You'll be an expert

Golden mean dipshit

I've read a bunch of Mein Kampf, but I'll check these all out. Thanks user!

Aristotle and Hermeias were gay lovers who dicked each other in the faggopooper.

>Can you be a collectivist and a individualist?
Isn't that opposites? In todays society I would choose the later.