Individualism is not a step forward, but backward.
Really?
You implied so in our last meeting.
No, not really...
I also remember your saying earlier that self-help books are bad, because they have done the necessary contemplation on our behalf.
Zero thinking on our own is surely a gigantic step toward totalitarianism.
Why should you be negative about individualism, then? Isn't it about being individualistic in thinking?
Alas, individualism comes in many guises.
I see, you're taking a cheap escape route by claiming that several types of individualism exist.
Several versions exist for everything. Think about a national dish of any country, Nasi goreng in Indonesia, for example. We all know that no two persons make the same Nasi goreng.
Suppose the society tries to identify the artist to whom a highly valued work could be attributed, and gives that artist elevated social status and/or financial rewards. You called it individualism last time. No doubt, it could lead to competition, but I don't see anything wrong with that. On the contrary, it motivates the artists to strive for better quality.
I wouldn't deny that. However, it could also lead to petty competitions, resulting in waste of energy for all involved.
Stealing and obstructing others' work?
Yes. Incentives always have the potential to be misused or abused. Suppose you reward a child for reading as much as s/he can, and you measure that amount by the number of pages read.
Naturally, s/he will go for books that are easier to read and with fewer pages per word. Was that your strategy when you were in elementary school?
Shhhhh! Individualism should not mean putting oneself above others at all times.
If everyone puts her/himself above others, we will have nothing but hell.
Individualism is not equivalent to isolationism, either.
Do you think it is possible for every one of us to think on our own? I thought you suggested that it would be difficult.
There will always be people who prefer to follow the most vocal and strong-sounding person.
We have herd instincts.
And we must resist them.
You said that we should overcome our me-me-me urge, and now you are saying we should not succumb to our if-you-say-so desire.
Again, the best lies in the middle. But that does not mean we are allowed to be egotistic some times and apathetic other times. By the way, the famous case of Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton shows that even brilliant minds can be alike.
They invented calculus separately, without collaboration... We belong to the same species and have access to similar sets of information. So it is natural that some of us come to think very similarly.
In my opinion, the best state of mind is an independent one which never fails to examine the problem itself carefully.
I take it that the ideal is not to let personal likes and dislikes interfere when forming our opinion.
All of us are under the great illusion that we are the very best human beings around, at least to our friends and family. So, I would be extra careful to voice an opinion that does not go down well with one of them.
Did anyone tell you that you drive people crazy? I'm getting totally confused.
Do you remember, Natsume Soseki, Blaise Pascal and all that? I know another line by Pascal, which serves us well here. Deux excès : exclure la raison, n'admettre que la raison.
Two excesses: to exclude reason and to allow only reason... You always find a way out of a tight corner!
I have a better way out.
Let's hear it.
You should form your opinion independent of who are for and against the issue, and also of how you feel about them as persons. Reason should prevail in this part. However, in making public the conclusion thus arrived, you should take personalities and personal histories into account. That may entail tweaking your conclusion a bit.
If there is a need to consolidate various opinions, as in the case of deciding what to do in order to prevent the city of Venice from going under water, we will be asked to compromise.
Certainly. It would not help to have everyone pushing her/his own idea. Note that this is the kind of instance where leaving the principal agent unnamed is a very wise plan.
All want to bask in the glory of being the one who rescued Venice, and clashes of such desires can well lead to adopting a plan that is not the most effective in terms of technology and finance.
As for the Golden Gate Bridge, Joseph Strauss managed to appear as the principal designer for seventy years after its construction, contrary to what actually took place.
Do you think it possible to suppress the me-me-me urge? I think it would be rather counterproductive.
I agree. We cannot totally eliminate such primary desires and they have to be taken care of one way or another.
Let me guess what you have in mind. It's an "Employee of the Month" scheme when there are exactly twelve workers...
Really?
You implied so in our last meeting.
No, not really...
I also remember your saying earlier that self-help books are bad, because they have done the necessary contemplation on our behalf.
Zero thinking on our own is surely a gigantic step toward totalitarianism.
Why should you be negative about individualism, then? Isn't it about being individualistic in thinking?
Alas, individualism comes in many guises.
I see, you're taking a cheap escape route by claiming that several types of individualism exist.
Several versions exist for everything. Think about a national dish of any country, Nasi goreng in Indonesia, for example. We all know that no two persons make the same Nasi goreng.
Suppose the society tries to identify the artist to whom a highly valued work could be attributed, and gives that artist elevated social status and/or financial rewards. You called it individualism last time. No doubt, it could lead to competition, but I don't see anything wrong with that. On the contrary, it motivates the artists to strive for better quality.
I wouldn't deny that. However, it could also lead to petty competitions, resulting in waste of energy for all involved.
Stealing and obstructing others' work?
Yes. Incentives always have the potential to be misused or abused. Suppose you reward a child for reading as much as s/he can, and you measure that amount by the number of pages read.
Naturally, s/he will go for books that are easier to read and with fewer pages per word. Was that your strategy when you were in elementary school?
Shhhhh! Individualism should not mean putting oneself above others at all times.
If everyone puts her/himself above others, we will have nothing but hell.
Individualism is not equivalent to isolationism, either.
Do you think it is possible for every one of us to think on our own? I thought you suggested that it would be difficult.
There will always be people who prefer to follow the most vocal and strong-sounding person.
We have herd instincts.
And we must resist them.
You said that we should overcome our me-me-me urge, and now you are saying we should not succumb to our if-you-say-so desire.
Again, the best lies in the middle. But that does not mean we are allowed to be egotistic some times and apathetic other times. By the way, the famous case of Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton shows that even brilliant minds can be alike.
They invented calculus separately, without collaboration... We belong to the same species and have access to similar sets of information. So it is natural that some of us come to think very similarly.
In my opinion, the best state of mind is an independent one which never fails to examine the problem itself carefully.
I take it that the ideal is not to let personal likes and dislikes interfere when forming our opinion.
All of us are under the great illusion that we are the very best human beings around, at least to our friends and family. So, I would be extra careful to voice an opinion that does not go down well with one of them.
Did anyone tell you that you drive people crazy? I'm getting totally confused.
Do you remember, Natsume Soseki, Blaise Pascal and all that? I know another line by Pascal, which serves us well here. Deux excès : exclure la raison, n'admettre que la raison.
Two excesses: to exclude reason and to allow only reason... You always find a way out of a tight corner!
I have a better way out.
Let's hear it.
You should form your opinion independent of who are for and against the issue, and also of how you feel about them as persons. Reason should prevail in this part. However, in making public the conclusion thus arrived, you should take personalities and personal histories into account. That may entail tweaking your conclusion a bit.
If there is a need to consolidate various opinions, as in the case of deciding what to do in order to prevent the city of Venice from going under water, we will be asked to compromise.
Certainly. It would not help to have everyone pushing her/his own idea. Note that this is the kind of instance where leaving the principal agent unnamed is a very wise plan.
All want to bask in the glory of being the one who rescued Venice, and clashes of such desires can well lead to adopting a plan that is not the most effective in terms of technology and finance.
As for the Golden Gate Bridge, Joseph Strauss managed to appear as the principal designer for seventy years after its construction, contrary to what actually took place.
Do you think it possible to suppress the me-me-me urge? I think it would be rather counterproductive.
I agree. We cannot totally eliminate such primary desires and they have to be taken care of one way or another.
Let me guess what you have in mind. It's an "Employee of the Month" scheme when there are exactly twelve workers...
Posts
