 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 368 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614114 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what, would you say, is an individual? I ask because Ihave been noticing something of an increase in the usage of the word, and particularly and strangely enough by US officials (politicians and cops mostly) describing acts of crime, terror or war. With the sudden heavy usage of the word by all such persons, I find it hard to believe it is a random case of word popularity, but rather some sort of tactic, though I do not know what goal nor who this tactic is intended for. It may also be that this word has always been in heavy usage by US officials, but I still don't believe it is random nor what any person, without being aware of it, would say in that situation. Though this phenomenon isn't strictly confined to america (David Attenborough has been using it quite a bit too for some strange reason), it is an undeniable fact that one of the ideals in America has been the strong individual who "makes it on his own" ever since it was founded; it is indeed why the bill of rights was created. Could any of the multiple roots of the multiple problems in american society (don't start crying about "but there's problems elsewhere too!" and "there aren't that many problems, really" because there are indeed problems elsewhere, but I do not believe that individualism is as heavy in other places, and thus not as likely to be the root of problems) possibly actually be traced back to this concept? Is a society entirely comprised of individuals a working and sustainable society or could this individuality be why integration of not only different races, but different classes in society even within one skin colour is difficult? If everyone goes around living their own individual lives and are supposed to make it on their own, there's no reason why anyone else should need help being integrated, is there? I was just wondering, and I'd definately like some americans to say how they feel individuality is working out in america. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
capitalism = individuality the stronger the economy comes, the stronger the focus on the individual. by thinking always as a single entity, we are less likely to share, more likely to buy more for ourselves. i believe individuality to be more of a marketing ploy above more than any other. or... maybe the US is getting scared of communism again! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd say the reason they say "individuals" is political correctness. With reference to terrorism for example, they're showing that they recognise not people in a given group (eg Muslims) are the problem, but that only certain individuals within it are. IMO, Individualism, provided you don't cock things up for anyone else, is great. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That should of course say, "...not all people..." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I mostly agree, I think, though individuality isn't all bad.. it's just bad when it is so that the more individual and self-contained you are, the "better"; when the goal is to be so individual that you don't need other individuals, something's wrong... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I highly recommend individualism. And integration is very big here. Many countries like France are looking to America for examples of integrating all types of people in order to give them hope and feel they have a stake in the game. Hope is what gets me out of bed. I like the idea that you can jump class and change careers and possibly circumvent University if you are smart and can carve your own niche. Do they have the phrase, "what do you want to be when you grow up" in Norway? You are punished in America for being poor. Its hard to get out of a hole and forget about good health care. No decent public transportation for the equalized masses. Which sucks. So, there are positives and negatives. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe. it sounds reasonable, but even when talking about organised crime (wasn't there a practice of denying organised crime ever existed some time back?) and groups, they say the groups consist of several individuals. it just sounds so weird. and.. it isn't only so that you shouldn't cock stuff up for everyone else for the individualism thing to work out.. you'd also need to be able to give and care for others, to function as a part of a society and not an isolated individual, for it not to be a problem. There's also the fact that certain people never reach the stage where they can truly be called individuals. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, the american dream is all about 'doing it for yourself' maybe you could link this with christianity? life is an individual journey through life with god. plus, essentially, christianity is inherently selfish in the sense that its booming success relies on its promise of an afterlife. I do consider Ceri's point though as a fair possibility for increased usage of the word. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You need other individuals to operate the capitalist machine. Its all a big network. Its just not state owned. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, integration isn't big in america. There may be people of different races and classes living in the same areas, but that isn't integration. Integration is when the group to be integrated actually feels it is a part of the group it should be integrated into, and that is quite clearly not the case.. african-american identity is completely different from WASP identity and southern identity is completely different from northern identity. Of course, you'll find this anywhere, but you won't find the same degree of groups keeping to themselves (china town, little italy, the ghettos, the history speaks for itself, and from what I gather things aren't much different these days), even when mixed, elsewhere. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hey, I wish our culture accepted people living with their parents well into their 50's like Italy. That would really be good for me!! Fuck that individual shit. Im getting home cooked meals until my mom can't walk anymore. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wasn't "The Self-Made Man" a concept and ideal back when industrialisation was happening? very many things can be linked with christianity.. there's even a theory that modern capitalism only came about because of protestantism (take one dose of "idle hands are the devils playground" and add piousness). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to operate the capitalist machine, yes, but not even in that are all operators true individuals. however, since capitalism and individualism are linked, if one could be a problem, the other is also a part of the problem. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, there are pluses. . You have to know that America is way bigger than Norway, too. Anyway, I like that there is all Italian neighborhoods. Chinese neighborhoods, Indian, Polish, etc...Thats the wonderful bit. It retains culure cause lots of family's don't want to loose their cultre. Its not cause they hate other races. I really don't understand what you are saying about organized crime though. You mean the sopranos? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
italy is a bit weird, yes, but that is not to say their individualism suffers from it.. it just expresses itself differently. being an individual is not the same as not depending on anyone else ever; the individual is supposed to work as a part of society, not solely as his own.. eh, this may be an awkward translation of a norwegian saying, but I hope you get it.. not solely as his own good fortunes smith. also, how do you connect the notion of the nuclear family with the notion of the individual as the ultimate ideal? if you have a nuclear family consisting of "pure" individuals (not desireable), there is no more family as everyone would be doing what they do and.. well... you see. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
exactly! the concept used to build the money making work machine, and a concept still being used today. people seem to hate taking handouts nowadays. a handout though that they know they will have to pay back is fine though. credit cards, loans, it's all the same. there's less sharing of wealth. it's all about profit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, it's bigger, but integration happens on small scales when someone from one area moves to another for instance, and it should work in that area, but what you get instead is large "colonies" of people with the same background who keep to their own kind. also, that people are afraid to lose their culture is proof that integraion isn't working; it doesn't imply losing ones own culture, but rather feeling part of another (and I might add "as well"). I don't know how the mafia is faring these days in america, but I was more thinking about the reports of "terrorist cells" or whatever they're called; people working together for some goal, usually bombing something. They aren't portrayed as groups, but "six individuals plotting to destroy all public toilets in miami." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think capitalism in America comes from the settlers being fed up with England and the No Taxation without Representation thing. The usa was founded on hating the overbearing royals. We said, fuck them. No ones going to rule over us. Hell, we'll even go west and look for gold. There were caveats and a slight socialist system was instated under the new deal in 1933. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There is taxes and a system and handouts in America. Believe it or not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I wish I could tell you why groups stick to themselves. I think there are good things about it so Im not complaining. And I don't think its entirely true either. Ive had all sorts of friends and I suspect other in the usa have too. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The nuclear family cannot exists as seperate individuals? I don't think that is true either. We just have to live in seperate houses when we grow up. Otherwise we would never get sex. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
they stick to themselves because they aren't integrated and because they stick to themselves no-one is integrated into them either. integration is a duty the government has and it has failed utterly. if the nuclear family was only individuals, it'd just be individuals living in a house, not a nuclear family. capitalism in america comes from the individuality embedded in the constitution of america which was, of course, founded on idealistic notions, and how often is it that ideals actually work out in the real world? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thats interesting about the segregation. You got me thinking. Can't put my finger on why. I don't think its a product of the rugged individual cause that would mean no one would talk to anyone under your theory which doesn't happen. Maybe its something as simple as the way cities were made in a grid patter. Or, vestages of tensions from the black segregation era. Or the fear of crime. Which we have plenty of. There is definetly a race problem in the usa. No question. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have a question, What is your definition of being integrated? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What is your ideal goverment system? What things would you do to change America to make it better to you? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it doesn't mean no-one would talk to anyone else, but they would do all in their power to not have to ever rely on anyone else, and this entails quite a few things. I now have to go to a lecture, but my definition of integration should be possible to extract from what I've already written. if not, I'll write it when I get back. A keyphrase would be identity not at the cost of previous identity, if you know what I mean... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe a little too farfetched but i always feel slightly startled about the concept of individuality. when talking about mankind, i guess "individual" is used in such a way that it is always interchangable with "a particular human being". but to characterize a human being as an "individual" probably attributes some further qualities to a human being than just "human being". i guess you can take the human being for granted. there are things we interact with, who are human beings. but you can still see the human being in different lights and i'm pretty unsure the characteristics the word "individual" suggests human beings have are really "there". these are all well known criticisms and not very suprising or original or too deep, but they seem valid to me. - the word "individual" originally meant "indivisible". so by seeing human beings as individuals we suggest that they are sort of "one thing". if a human being were many things, then it should be possible to divide him or her into its component parts and it would be questionable to call it "individual" okay, it's commonly accepted that the body is an organism. it has different organs which do different things, stomach, heart etc. but you can break the metal part of the human being down to components as well. there's reason, there are emotions, there are instinctive drives, there's dreaming, which all can be seen as individual things in themselves. so is there really the unity one might think that there is? isn't the self rather fragmented and loads of different things which are together in one "mental pace"? - "individual" also seems to imply identity. one individual is the same throughout his or her life. but (this refers to the last point) when u describe yourself you might say something like "yes, i'm a really angry bastard". this is a reference to a certain emotion. but the you might find yourself 2 years later and find you have totally lost the characteristics you thought that would perfec |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
perfectly capture your individual being. maybe becuz there are none such characteristics. you are confronted with certain sentiments but they are inconsistent. - one of the most importan thing i guess people feel about themselves, when they regard themselves as individuals, is that they can act freely, that means, act how they choose to. the whole judical system for example is obviously based on this. it supposes free choice. but i find it very difficult to find an intellctual argument that convincingly indicates that human being xy when confronted with situation Z could really act in more than one way, other than he or she actually acts. i guess everybody believes in causality. and if one situation causes the next situation how can the same situation potentially be the cause a number of different situations? human choices depend on conditions (mental inner conditions and external conditions), if you ignore chance (which would leave ne freedom to the human being anyway) and quantum physics (which states that objects are not objective) every situation should always only be possible to cause nothing more but one particular situation. yeah, some objections many people don't take seriously anyway, but i find them actually rather hard to ignore. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
marxism will kick your asses |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There is no individualism as America sells it to the world. You just graft yourself to a company a corporation as opposed to the goverment or state. Its basically the same thing. A machine. Its just a good slogan for politicians. Individualism in the 16-1800's meant something else. It meant getting your 40 acres and a mule. Or your plot of land which would go for next to nothing. I thought about it and I think segregation in America is largely a class issue. Not a race issue. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
individualism nowadays = consumerism you are what you buy |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd say it's more about what you don't buy/pay for. A large part of what appeals to me about individualism is minimising my reliance on others and hence the cost. Yes, you can never completely be self reliant unless you're only talking about surviving, rather than living in the modern world (you could never become truly proficient in a dozen different scientific disciplines, let alone all of them). That's not to say you shouldn't try and do some things for yourself, rather than just paying someone else to do them for you (I'd say that sounds more like capitalism...) Things as simple as doing DIY, home mechanical work and fixing problems on your computer yourself (even if you use a textbook/stuff off the internet to aid you in doing them) are a step close to individualism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it is true that people strive to become as unique as possible. in a way it's almost as if we try to be individual to make ourselves feel more important, more significant. some people copy others, those people copy others in order to be accepted. in a sense, most of us do this to an extent. individuality has its limits i guess. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ego always want more and more |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, I think people who are intentionally outlandish/"alternative" solely to be different (apart from all the other people who are also "alternative") are a bit sad. You should just do things/be how you want and if that's similar to other people, that's fine. So long as you choose to be like that, rather than accept it as some sort of default/never consider the other options, I'd say this still constitutes individualism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
welt: even though you can describe parts of something doesn't mean that you get the same if you extract the part from it; the sum may be greater than the parts, and if you remove a dream or emotion or anything like that from everything else, it is nothing because it needs all the other faculties to be made sense of and even to exist, and that's what indivisible means.. if something is indivisible, it doesn't mean it's all one and only one thing, but rather that it may consist of many things that won't function on their own. also, the etymology of the word doesn't necessarily connect to the way it is used today; "Indivisible" doesn't entail "independent of anyone but oneself," but that is a part of the modern day concept of individual, though no-one can truly claim to have reached this stage, and I would even go as far as saying that whatever ceri may think, this is not a desireable position for any individual to be in. however, I am now drunk (you should try smokehead whiskey.. it's islay like laphroaig and thus quite smoky, etc, but it is in a sense a bit milder, reminding me of cognac, so it is, quite clearly, inferior to laphroaig, but still worth a taste), and will proceed with some foodstuffs before going to sleep so that I may once again wake up to a new day. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
uhh, i am an "american" and i'll say that i'm doing the things i do for my family i am a part of. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think individulas is used as a part of propaganda mostly..not to frighten people.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Drunken Mastah, I'd like to compliment you on your terrific command of the Englsih language. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the idea of individualism has become more and more hysterical in western society, culminating in phenomena like livejournal and blogging or, at worst, tv programmes like "Idols", "X-Factor", whatever it's called in your respective country. it's the idea that we all are stars, NO we all DESERVE to be stars, we all DESERVE to be in the limelight, being famous has become a goal of itself - who cares if you're actually famous for some kind of talent or achievement. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
See, i can't even spell complement |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but what if for someone 'just doing things/being how you want' includes 'being intentionally outlandish/"alternative" solely to be different'? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh, I did spell it right. Im such a fuck tard. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you "corrected" yourself wrongly though - "compliment" was spelled right. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I bet Aphex Twin is an individualist. He's God around here. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
adam curtis's century of the self would be a good thing to reference here. i'd extract some deep insights and copy them here as my own opinions but unfortunately i just can't be biv-ored. brilliant series tho. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right, and though you in other places says things that may contradict the more extensive consequence of what you just said, I must point out that this consequence is, not the self-contained individual, but rather what would be more ideal: the society where individuals do depend on each other and where the individual, once he has become an individual, goes back into society as a part of it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, that was kind of what I thought at first, though ceris explanation could also be feasible. I thought it was some way of making people think they were all individuals, and that this would somehow help american politics. In what way, I do not yet know. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahaha, though I am unable to detect if this is irony or not.. thanks! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
mental thread,i like it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
