Posts by Amanda Jackson5

Kyle Nelson2 said:We don't exactly need to fast-forward 200 or 300 years to witness a total idiocracy... I mean, we’re living it right now.

You’ve got people with the emotional intelligence of a 16-year-old, screaming for independence just because they saw some footage of police brutality on the news... and honestly, even if that hadn't happened, they'd probably still feel the exact same way. It’s just a way to get that little hit of emotional validation for a stance they already held anyway.
There’s never been a time, and there never will be, where any group—especially some regional identity—gets to just declare whatever they want, whenever they want, in direct defiance of the law (or more accurately, in defiance of most of it). Look, if the law doesn't apply to Californians, then why should it apply to anyone else?

The only thing that actually holds sovereignty is the people. Sovereignty flows from the people, and the law flows from them. Is that concept lost on you? You might want to pick up some Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Californians have California. They live on their own land. They didn't just arrive "out of nowhere" or "recently." They don't have some distant motherland to lean on other than the one they call home. They are a people on their own territory, not just a "regional identity" (or at least, they aren't *only* that), and that's more than enough ground to stand on when invoking the right to self-determination. All these constant appeals to "the law" by the Castilians are really just reflections of imperialist tendencies—I'll hold back from calling them "fascist" or "Francoist" for now, though I suspect current events might strip me of that restraint pretty quickly.

stormyeagle60 said:Before Sunday's bloody referendum on California independence, I was hovering somewhere between "not my problem" and "it’s probably best if they stay part of Spain." But after seeing those images of police brutalizing people—dragging voters by their hair just for trying to cast a ballot—well, now I wouldn't mind if Californians declared independence and gave Spain, and that hypocritical, pathetic European Union, a real wake-up call. Where are the leaders of the free world now? I’m thinking specifically of Angela Merkel and that poser Emmanuel Macron... everyone seems to have gone quiet. It turns out their concern for democracy and basic humanity is pretty selective when it suits them.

Yeah, I'm right there with you. That's pretty much how my own convictions have shifted. Once I sat back and really thought about it, I realized—what right do I even have to decide what's best for them? What right does anyone else have to weigh in? Absolutely none. You have a people, a territory, and the collective will of that population; that's the foundation upon which any legitimate law is built. Claiming the referendum is "illegal" is frankly laughable and misses the point entirely. They clearly have a right to self-determination, and if that right isn't being handed to them, they might just have to take it. The way the European Union, or rather its officials, are handling this is nothing short of disgraceful. We should be drawing some pretty grim conclusions from all of this, and I suspect plenty of other Americans have reached those same conclusions already.

swifttiger75 said:The world of experience isn't reality itself—just one slice of it.

Perishable goods—for such a long journey and struggle.



Thx. Enjoy yourself. 👍

@cestar, I'll get back to you later, but yeah—in principle, I agree.

You too.

swifttiger75 said:Thanks.
Just one more thing before I let you get back to the main topic: how does this logic apply to revolutions?

Think of them as sudden, extreme qualitative shifts occurring within a complex, self-organizing dynamic system. You can find endless examples of this if you look closely, not just in social structures but throughout the natural world as well. The defining trait of these complex systems is their ability to produce coherent, large-scale collective behaviors, which essentially emerge from the repeated, non-linear interactions happening between all their individual parts. Or, to put it more simply: it’s just a case of quantity finally tipping over into quality.

hiddeneagle98 said:I mean, sure, the "concept of society" is an attempt to map out how things should work, but let’s be real—in the actual world, our social reality is shaped by a messy collision of unpredictable factors that nobody ever bothered to write down in a manifesto, mixed with whatever ideologies some theorist decided to dream up in a vacuum.

Think about it this way: when an American community finds itself staring down the barrel of a famine, a full-scale war, massive shortages, or a sweeping epidemic, people don't sit around debating abstract philosophy; they tighten their ranks just to survive. In those moments of crisis, you see much more collective, unified societal structures take hold, whereas during the easy, peaceful times, everything tends to drift back toward those hyper-individualistic ideas.

Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say "collective social structures are forming"; it feels more like external pressures are simply forcing a temporary spike in social cohesion within the framework of the society we already have.

swifttiger75 said:So, is war just another social circumstance? And if it is, does it dictate how we build our society?

Yep.

swifttiger75 said:So, is war just another social circumstance? And if it is, does it dictate how we build our society?

Not quite. It’s more like how the DNA of a society dictates the DNA of its conflicts. If you're living in a feudalistic setup, your wars are going to look feudal; if you're running a hyper-capitalist machine, your warfare is going to reflect that cutthroat, profit-driven logic. Essentially, the whole blueprint of a society is shaped by its technological maturity—or what the Marxists would call the level of development of the means of production—and perhaps, to a slightly lesser extent, by those massive, sweeping currents of global history.

hiddeneagle98 said:The core idea you were getting hung up on a few posts back was that the tension between individual rights and the collective good isn't set in stone; it’s a dynamic, shifting balance.

By claiming that utilitarianism is the least satisfying option, you're basically digging your heels into this rigid, static viewpoint, which is the polar opposite of what I'm saying—that different social models can ebb and flow in effectiveness depending on the specific circumstances at hand.

The way we conceptualize society is what shapes our social reality, rather than social realities dictating how we should define society.

hiddeneagle98 said:Customs were once rational decisions too, you know. People exist today because of those very customs. Any "rational decision" you decide to pull right now might not even hold water, and it’s only after it proves itself useful a thousand times over that it might eventually settle into being a custom.🙂

And those rational decisions absolutely have to involve the participation of every single member of society.

That’s exactly how you end up smothering the voice of the individual in favor of some vague collective will.

Rational will cannot accept social institutions that are merely "given"—institutions that just exist without being rationally justified. Rousseau's concept of the "social contract" implies universal and total participation in power by all citizens. Achieving maximum societal homogeneity is desirable.

But here’s the thing: maximum societal homogeneity is also maximum non-individuality. That is precisely what totalitarian societies, like North Korea, strive for.

How on earth do you get citizens to be homogeneous in how they organize their society and institutions?
The only way is if citizens are just mindless copies of one another, like ants, completely unaware of their own identity, their position, or their own will.

Because of this, maximum economic equality among all people is also desirable.

People cannot be individuals and be equal at the same time. I don't care what fancy quote someone uses to try and save that argument; it is a contradiction in terms. You can't even achieve economic equality while maintaining true individuality, because that would mean people aren't allowed to express their unique traits in the economic sphere—and that is nothing more than the strangling of the individual spirit.

Of course they can't, and of course it’s all contradictory. If you didn't catch my drift earlier, I was comparing two different social frameworks—utilitarianism versus the "general will." Neither one actually works, but my point was that utilitarianism is arguably the least functional of the bunch. I was trying to engage with this at a level a bit higher than just throwing around clichés about "suffocating the individual spirit" and things of that nature. If your goal is a society built on absolute freedom, you’d need a perfectly homogeneous population to pull it off, but that’s a fantasy. Every society constantly churns out its own myths, yet Enlightenment-style utilitarianism treats myth-making as something reserved for primitive, ancient tribes rather than modern, rational societies. That alone proves that the utilitarian model is just as much of a utopia as any rival theory based on the "general will." It hasn't been all that long since people argued that citizens stay loyal to their society simply because of the services it provides them, a view that led to claims about the "end of ideology." As it turns out, utilitarianism is just as ideological as everything else—if anything, it's even less plausible than the alternatives.

hiddeneagle98 said:You can't have an individual without the collective, and you certainly can't have a collective without the individual. It’s one of those things that people love to argue about because they want to feel special or independent, but it’s just not how things work. You can't pull a single thread out of a tapestry and expect the picture to stay intact; once you start isolating the parts, the whole thing just unravels into nothingness. We like to pretend we're these self-made islands, but every thought we have and every action we take is shaped by the massive, swirling ocean of society around us. It’s a feedback loop, a constant exchange where both sides are feeding off each other to exist. Without the group, there's no context for who you are, and without the person, there is no group to speak of. It’s all interconnected.

The ideal individual—the one who truly reaches that god-like state of consciousness—undergoes this radical, almost violent alienation from the collective. It’s not just a simple disagreement or a feeling of being "out of sync" with the crowd; it’s a fundamental severance. When you start to grasp the true depth of things, you realize that the masses operate on a completely different frequency, driven by social conditioning and the basic need for conformity. It’s like trying to explain the intricate mechanics of a jet engine to someone who thinks a car moves because of magic. There is an inherent friction there. As you begin to move toward becoming Wholeness in operation, the shared illusions that hold society together start to feel incredibly thin, even suffocating. You aren't just stepping outside the circle; you are realizing the circle was always an illusion to begin with. This process of detachment is inevitable, yet it's exactly what makes the journey so lonely. To achieve that level of clarity, you have to be willing to lose your place in the herd, which is something most people are fundamentally terrified to do. 😬
When you start dreaming up this perfect, utopian collective, you’re basically just designing a blueprint for the erasure of the individual. It’s that classic trap where everyone tries to act like a single organism—think of an ant colony or a beehive—where the "greater good" isn't just a goal, it's the only thing that exists. In those scenarios, the concept of a unique personality or a private thought becomes a bug in the system rather than a feature. You end up with this hive mind where the individual is swallowed whole by the group, leaving nothing behind but a mindless, synchronized drone.

If you want both of those ideals to actually exist in the same space, you’re looking at a mandatory compromise between the two, or maybe just stepping away from them entirely. It’s pretty simple math: if you cling too hard to one, you aren't leaving any room for the other to breathe.

Even if we’re talking about a compromise, what does it actually mean to label it as "dynamic"? It feels like a bit of a buzzword at this point. I mean, you could just as easily imagine a static compromise, couldn't you? It's the same logic we apply when we talk about relationships—you can have one that's fixed and unchanging, or you can have one that's dynamic and constantly shifting. It's all about whether the balance stays frozen in place or if it's always moving.

Look, there’s no way around it: individualism and collectivism both come with their own set of baggage and benefits, depending entirely on the situation at hand. And since circumstances are always shifting and evolving, the compromise we strike between the two has to evolve right along with them. It isn't a static equation you just solve once and forget about; it's more like trying to maintain a steady course while navigating a massive storm off the coast of Maine—you're constantly adjusting your heading based on how the waves are hitting the hull. One minute you need to pull together as a crew to keep from capsizing, and the next, you need every person to focus on their specific station to keep the engine running. You can't just pick one side and stay there forever if you want to actually get anywhere.

Fair enough. But if we’re talking about a truly free society, it has to be a deliberate creation of its own members. That means it needs to be built on rational choices rather than just falling back on old customs. And those rational decisions have to involve everyone in the mix. You can't really claim to have a rational will if you're stuck with social institutions that were just handed to you—things that exist without any logical justification. Rousseau's whole idea regarding the "social contract" implies that every single citizen should participate in power universally and totally. In this view, you'd want a society that is as homogeneous as possible, which naturally leads to pushing for maximum economic equality among everyone. It all stems from that concept of the "Volonte generale".
Modern advocates for direct democracy—meaning total participation—follow Rousseau by arguing that radical decentralization of power is the only sensible, or even fair, way forward.
Charles Taylor points out again that the utilitarian social theories of the Enlightenment weren't quite up to the task of filling the void left behind when traditional societies fell apart. Because of that, some modern societies either kept running using large chunks of that old traditional machinery, or, in cases of massive upheaval, they pivoted toward some variation of a "Volonte generale" tradition through revolutionary ideologies like Jacobinism, Marxism, or Anarchism. Other times, they just turned toward nationalism, which acts like a powerful secular religion. Even societies that look like they're based on utilitarian principles or a Lockean model—take the United States, for example—eventually had to start manufacturing their own myths, like the myth of the "frontier" or the idea of a perpetual fresh start.

hiddeneagle98 said:The truth is, when people talk about "the deal," they're really just using a fancy word for a compromise—one that, if you listen to what hiddeneagle98 is saying, is constantly shifting under our feet.

I get where you're coming from, but even that statement feels a bit too broad to be useful. Why settle for the word compromise when you could just say relationship? You know? This kind of discourse doesn't offer much to chew on. Even if we stick with compromise, what does it actually mean for a compromise to be "dynamic"? It’s a bit of a stretch; we could just as easily imagine a static compromise, much like how we could envision a relationship being either dynamic or static.

Ethan Gomez82 said:The pendulum is constantly swinging, and social contracts—whether they look like this one or that one—are almost always present. Occasionally, we hit periods of total chaos where nearly every agreement falls apart.
There is no such thing as an "ideal" (or immutable) state when you consider the relationship between the individual and society.

In your previous post, you mentioned alignment with universal values. I didn't comment on it then because it leads down a rabbit hole, but I have to now. There is no such thing as a universal value. Values are relationships tied to a subject (some biological entity); outside of that context, mentioning them is meaningless. Something is "valuable" only if it holds value for someone. And that biological individual—that "someone"—is in constant flux, just like the community they belong to. The pendulum swings, and as it does, certain values gain weight while others lose it. What holds value today might be worthless tomorrow.

Fair enough, though I realize now you were talking about the active movement of those pendulums. It doesn't matter, let's just move on.

Ethan Gomez82 said:The pendulum is constantly swinging, and social contracts—whether they look like this one or that one—are almost always present. Occasionally, we hit periods of total chaos where nearly every agreement falls apart.
There is no such thing as an "ideal" (or immutable) state when you consider the relationship between the individual and society.

In your previous post, you mentioned alignment with universal values. I didn't comment on it then because it leads down a rabbit hole, but I have to now. There is no such thing as a universal value. Values are relationships tied to a subject (some biological entity); outside of that context, mentioning them is meaningless. Something is "valuable" only if it holds value for someone. And that biological individual—that "someone"—is in constant flux, just like the community they belong to. The pendulum swings, and as it does, certain values gain weight while others lose it. What holds value today might be worthless tomorrow.

When we say an ideal "doesn't exist," we mean it isn't grounded in reality, which is actually the very definition of an ideal. If it were real, it wouldn't be an ideal anymore. However, the logical interplay between these terms can easily trip up someone trying too hard to sound profound. It might be more helpful to frame it as the ideal versus the real, or perhaps the essential versus the apparent. In this context, the "essential"—much like the ideal—is that underlying constant that remains steady beneath the surface of all the shifting appearances. Something like that.

Ethan Gomez82 said:The pendulum is constantly swinging, and social contracts—whether they look like this one or that one—are almost always present. Occasionally, we hit periods of total chaos where nearly every agreement falls apart.
There is no such thing as an "ideal" (or immutable) state when you consider the relationship between the individual and society.

In your previous post, you mentioned alignment with universal values. I didn't comment on it then because it leads down a rabbit hole, but I have to now. There is no such thing as a universal value. Values are relationships tied to a subject (some biological entity); outside of that context, mentioning them is meaningless. Something is "valuable" only if it holds value for someone. And that biological individual—that "someone"—is in constant flux, just like the community they belong to. The pendulum swings, and as it does, certain values gain weight while others lose it. What holds value today might be worthless tomorrow.

The concept of universal values isn't fundamentally different from how we categorize the universal, the particular, and the individual. To strip it down to its simplest form, we could say universal values are those shared by all people or those derived from pure reason. Claiming there is nothing universal in values is akin to saying there is nothing universal in a concept itself, which is a bit ridiculous given that a concept is, by its very nature, a universal construct.

Ethan Gomez82 said:The pendulum is constantly swinging, and social contracts—whether they look like this one or that one—are almost always present. Occasionally, we hit periods of total chaos where nearly every agreement falls apart.
There is no such thing as an "ideal" (or immutable) state when you consider the relationship between the individual and society.

In your previous post, you mentioned alignment with universal values. I didn't comment on it then because it leads down a rabbit hole, but I have to now. There is no such thing as a universal value. Values are relationships tied to a subject (some biological entity); outside of that context, mentioning them is meaningless. Something is "valuable" only if it holds value for someone. And that biological individual—that "someone"—is in constant flux, just like the community they belong to. The pendulum swings, and as it does, certain values gain weight while others lose it. What holds value today might be worthless tomorrow.

That’s true, certainly. But that applies only to particular values—if we want to call them that. We could just as easily label them ephemeral, fleeting, or temporary. That’s really beside the point, though.

hiddeneagle98 said:The problem is that a contract strips an individual of their divine spark and robs society of any chance at reaching a true utopia.

I’d argue that the contract is more like the prerequisite for both divinity and utopia to even exist. Of course, making such a sweeping, broad statement doesn't actually get us anywhere specific, and it leaves plenty of room for different interpretations—much like the one you just offered.

Sandra Murphy33 said:"The completeness found within any single entity can vibrate in harmony with the completeness of any other. However, the specific shape—the conscious perception—that this resonance takes within an individual’s mind is merely a projection of what is already embedded there. And because every individual mind is inherently limited, the perception remains limited; after all, any entity we define as a 'whole' is, by its very nature, finite." (D. Rudhyar)

"The totality within one whole can resonate with the totality of another. Yet, the form—the mental awareness—this resonance adopts in the observer's mind is fundamentally just a projection of what is already present within that mind. Since all minds are finite, and all defined wholes are finite, the resulting perception will always reflect that inherent limitation."

Spot on 👍

Nea-- says:

"The wholeness in any given whole can echo the wholeness found in any other whole. However, the specific shape—the mental consciousness—that this resonance takes within the mind of the listener is really just a projection of what’s already baked into that mind. And because we define anything as a 'whole' based on its boundaries, that mind remains inherently finite."

If you ask me, this version flows a bit more naturally:
"Wholeness in one whole can resonate with the wholeness in any other whole. But the form (the mental consciousness) that this resonance takes in the mind of the person experiencing it is essentially a projection of what is already inherent in that mind—which is always a finite mind, seeing as all wholes are finite by definition."

Sam Martinez9 said:I am uncertain what genetics would suggest regarding this matter, and I have a strong distaste for using phrases like "it's genetic" where it hasn't been scientifically proven, but I suspect that the need to belong is one of the most fundamental human—perhaps even non-human—needs. Is it hardwired into our DNA? Perhaps.

The sense of belonging to a family, a nation, a sports fan club...

One of our most primal emotions is fear. Fear for one's life, fear of death...

We feel more secure, or rather, we experience less fear, when the group we belong to is superior. A better tribe, a better nation, a better family, a better sports franchise... regardless of an individual's own traits, being part of a superior group provides a baseline of stability. A high-achieving individual will often accomplish far less within a failing organization than a mediocre individual will achieve within a powerful one.

The drive to ensure our specific group or nation is superior to all others is precisely what gave rise to nationalism. It is common for Americans to believe their nation is superior to others, particularly compared to their primary rivals, neighbors, or groups like Mexicans, Canadians, or Muslims...

To prove superiority, one must occasionally measure strength. Wars and sporting events are both ways of testing that mettle. If *we* are capable of defeating a top-tier football team, it serves as a proxy proof that we excel in other arenas as well.

Every one of us harbors an ideal of what our group should look like if it were perfect. What would constitute the perfect family, the perfect nation, the perfect Riot Squad...

However, groups are inherently imperfect, and we are never truly alone within them. There are always diverse members holding conflicting visions of what perfection looks like. We end up fighting within the group to impose our own idea of perfection.

But does a perfect group actually exist? Is there such a thing as a perfect nation or a perfect family that lasts forever? Or is perfection itself subject to the tides of time, meaning the "perfect" family from two thousand years ago could never be measured against the "perfect" family of today?

Perfection is just whatever happens to align perfectly with your own definition of it. Whatever that may be.

Ethan Gomez82 said:I’m not denying that society is rational, nor am I denying the autonomy and rationality of the individual. But the moment we claim to have both an autonomous individual and a society (which is their destiny), conflict becomes inevitable. This tension is baked into the relationship; it's irreconcilable. There is no such thing as a final, perfectly rational "social contract" because neither the individual nor society is purely rational—we are both irrational and constantly shifting. Any attempt to swing the pendulum too far in either direction leads to disastrous, even tragic, results. Consequently, an individual can never be absolutely free while also being absolutely ethical, even though the drive for maximum liberty is just as constant as the need to maintain a moral society.

That is the world we actually live in. The idealized world you’re describing—where a perfectly rational individual is in total harmony with universal values—simply doesn't exist. Since I'm no Marx and I'm just trying to make sense of the world I found myself in, I'll pass on handing out recipes for achieving universal bliss.

So if that's the case, why wouldn't a "contract" be possible at all?

Ethan Gomez82 said:I’m not denying that society is rational, nor am I denying the autonomy and rationality of the individual. But the moment we claim to have both an autonomous individual and a society (which is their destiny), conflict becomes inevitable. This tension is baked into the relationship; it's irreconcilable. There is no such thing as a final, perfectly rational "social contract" because neither the individual nor society is purely rational—we are both irrational and constantly shifting. Any attempt to swing the pendulum too far in either direction leads to disastrous, even tragic, results. Consequently, an individual can never be absolutely free while also being absolutely ethical, even though the drive for maximum liberty is just as constant as the need to maintain a moral society.

That is the world we actually live in. The idealized world you’re describing—where a perfectly rational individual is in total harmony with universal values—simply doesn't exist. Since I'm no Marx and I'm just trying to make sense of the world I found myself in, I'll pass on handing out recipes for achieving universal bliss.

So I guess you're saying we shouldn't touch the pendulum.

Ethan Gomez82 said:I’m not denying that society is rational, nor am I denying the autonomy and rationality of the individual. But the moment we claim to have both an autonomous individual and a society (which is their destiny), conflict becomes inevitable. This tension is baked into the relationship; it's irreconcilable. There is no such thing as a final, perfectly rational "social contract" because neither the individual nor society is purely rational—we are both irrational and constantly shifting. Any attempt to swing the pendulum too far in either direction leads to disastrous, even tragic, results. Consequently, an individual can never be absolutely free while also being absolutely ethical, even though the drive for maximum liberty is just as constant as the need to maintain a moral society.

That is the world we actually live in. The idealized world you’re describing—where a perfectly rational individual is in total harmony with universal values—simply doesn't exist. Since I'm no Marx and I'm just trying to make sense of the world I found myself in, I'll pass on handing out recipes for achieving universal bliss.

Ideals still exist, though. I actually touched on this recently in another thread (under "Is there a positive role for diversity?", post #4):
Quincy:

...there’s no such thing as a perfect society, or any truly "perfect" entity in reality, because anything that actually exists is inherently finite, flawed, and full of contradictions. Back in the Romantic era, the social ideal was the Greek polis, which represented that perfect sweet spot where individual liberty and deep communal connection lived in balance. Every citizen could see themselves in that polis. But once the polis was replaced by class rule, people stopped seeing the state as a reflection of themselves. Of course, the polis eventually collapsed under its own internal weight.

Ethan Gomez82 said:The tension between the individual and society is an endless, frustrating cycle. Sometimes it’s blatant; other times, it’s buried under the surface. As social animals, we need community to survive—it's an inescapable framework. But here’s the catch: one person's interests almost always clash with everyone else's. We use politics—in its broadest sense—to manage this mess, essentially suppressing the friction to keep it at a manageable level. This dynamic plays out everywhere, from small families to the entire United States. When there's a push for tighter social integration, you start seeing more bullying, marginalization, and outright aggression. On the flip side, individual resistance builds up until the whole thing threatens to boil over, forcing leaders to "vent the steam." Conversely, during prosperous times, that pressure drops because people actually have the luxury to walk away from mandatory, frustrating social ties (like you might see in Scandinavia, for instance). While this makes for a low-conflict society, it creates a different kind of danger: social bonds become loose and fragile, leaving us vulnerable and lacking the cohesion needed to withstand external shocks.

I think there's a bit of a contradiction in your argument, specifically between this atomistic view of society and your concern about losing social cohesion. The Enlightenment handed us this mechanistic, atomistic way of looking at humans as mere objects in nature, subject to random whims. That seems to be your perspective—and Hume's, for that matter. In those atomistic versions of liberalism, the individual and their specific goals are treated as the ultimate priority, while the community itself is reduced to nothing more than a tool used to coordinate and satisfy those private interests. However, if you look at society through that lens, you end up with individuals who aren't truly ethical or even truly free, and you completely ignore the rational nature of society and the autonomous, rational nature of the person. After all, a person isn't actually free unless they are autonomous, rational, and ethical—meaning they are aligned with universal values or, ultimately, with the Absolute. In these atomistic social models, there is no concept of "the Good," which means you can't have a meaningful human community. In any meaningful—or even "good"—community, nothing exists that isn't clearly defined by reason. It’s not some mystical force looming "above" humanity that we are forced to bow down to; rather, it’s something that flows directly from our own nature as rational beings. I am free only when I am governed by a law that originates from within myself, from my very essence. And that law is rational. Rationality is universal, not isolated or atomistic, and it certainly doesn't exist in opposition to the community. Ethics can only have substance when viewed from the perspective of society as a whole, never from the isolated perspective of the individual. From that narrow viewpoint, the individual is just an animal, or a creature stuck in a "state of nature."

Sam Martinez9 said:I find myself agreeing with that first sentence, though the validity of the whole idea is clearly laid out in the second part.

After all, both Jesus and Socrates were, first and foremost, products of the society they inhabited. Jesus was born into and lived within the framework of a traditional family unit of that era. He was shaped by his surroundings; he was a product of his society.

That is, unless we assume some sort of innate biological pre-programming—the old debate over whether humans are born as blank slates or not—rendered the influence of society negligible.

Fine, if we consider him God, then perhaps that's possible. But for everyone else, we are primarily the products of the communities where we are born and raised. People eventually rebel against certain rules or even entire social structures, but that rebellion is almost always directed at the very society that formed us, and through that process, we change it.

Take that recent story about the eight-year-old girl discovered in the wilds of India living among monkeys. She wasn't shaped by any human collective. She doesn't speak; she hisses and growls, walking somewhat upright and sometimes on all fours, prone to outbursts of rage... essentially, her behavior is perfectly in sync with the environment she lived in until now.

To summarize: there is no "individual" (in the human sense) without the "collective." However, following the most accurate maxim in existence—that everything changes—the collective itself is not static; it evolves.

The individual influences the collective, but only once that collective has reached a level of maturity ready for change. If the group isn't ready, the shifts proposed by an individual will be rejected, and that person may face harsh consequences—sometimes involving exile or even death.

Major societal shifts driven by powerful individuals are recorded in history alongside their names. Yet, just as vital are the subtle, incremental changes that gradually reshape the collective every single day.

I'm running short on time, so I'll just leave it at this: there hasn't ever been a single human collective encompassing all of humanity. Instead, we are divided into various civilizations and cultures.

Through interaction, these groups constantly influence one another—sometimes through diplomacy, and sometimes through force, where one culture imposes its will upon another through fire and sword.

Of course, everything is in flux, and to make matters more complicated, these forces are constantly rubbing against one another. You don't get individuals without a society, but you certainly don't get a society without individuals either. The ideal shouldn't be some setup where people are just cogs in a machine used to reach a specific goal; rather, they should form a community where, much like in a living organism, there's a healthy balance between the means and the ends. The ultimate goal is for everything to be both the tool and the destination at once.
But the crucial point Hegel makes here is that what truly matters for a person can only be realized through their relationship with the public life of the community—what he calls the objective spirit—rather than through the isolated self-determination of some alienated loner. According to him, the public life of a state is vital because the norms and ideals it upholds aren't just arbitrary human inventions; they are the expression of the Idea itself, reflecting the very ontological structure of reality.
So, the Hegelian concept of collectivity is far deeper, richer, and fundamentally different from the Enlightenment view of the state acting as a mere utility meant to manufacture "happiness" for the individual.

Sam Martinez9 said:I find myself agreeing with that first sentence, though the validity of the whole idea is clearly laid out in the second part.

After all, both Jesus and Socrates were, first and foremost, products of the society they inhabited. Jesus was born into and lived within the framework of a traditional family unit of that era. He was shaped by his surroundings; he was a product of his society.

That is, unless we assume some sort of innate biological pre-programming—the old debate over whether humans are born as blank slates or not—rendered the influence of society negligible.

Fine, if we consider him God, then perhaps that's possible. But for everyone else, we are primarily the products of the communities where we are born and raised. People eventually rebel against certain rules or even entire social structures, but that rebellion is almost always directed at the very society that formed us, and through that process, we change it.

Take that recent story about the eight-year-old girl discovered in the wilds of India living among monkeys. She wasn't shaped by any human collective. She doesn't speak; she hisses and growls, walking somewhat upright and sometimes on all fours, prone to outbursts of rage... essentially, her behavior is perfectly in sync with the environment she lived in until now.

To summarize: there is no "individual" (in the human sense) without the "collective." However, following the most accurate maxim in existence—that everything changes—the collective itself is not static; it evolves.

The individual influences the collective, but only once that collective has reached a level of maturity ready for change. If the group isn't ready, the shifts proposed by an individual will be rejected, and that person may face harsh consequences—sometimes involving exile or even death.

Major societal shifts driven by powerful individuals are recorded in history alongside their names. Yet, just as vital are the subtle, incremental changes that gradually reshape the collective every single day.

I'm running short on time, so I'll just leave it at this: there hasn't ever been a single human collective encompassing all of humanity. Instead, we are divided into various civilizations and cultures.

Through interaction, these groups constantly influence one another—sometimes through diplomacy, and sometimes through force, where one culture imposes its will upon another through fire and sword.

Sure, but if a group of interconnected individuals acts as a collective within the larger collective to push back, things can turn into a bloody mess pretty quickly. In cases of revolutionary terror, it’s not just the individual being punished; it’s the whole collective. There’s also the alternative of the alienated individual who offers nothing at all and simply withdraws. Much like the Stoics or Buddhists, a person pulls away when participating in public life—the institutions, the customs, the social norms—stops feeling meaningful. It happens when people lose faith in Washington politicians, or stop seeing any point in voting, or when they look at public life and see nothing but a mask for dishonest motives.
In any case, the core idea remains that integrating the individual and the collective (or *Sittlichkeit*) is a necessary requirement that can be deduced from the Idea itself. To put it another way, cosmic order serves as the foundation of society, and this integration is the ultimate aim of history.

I honestly don't see why people make such a massive deal out of this. It’s like watching someone freak out because they realized their coffee was a little too bitter; you just take it as it is and move on with your day. People love to complicate things that are actually pretty straightforward, turning minor inconveniences into these huge, dramatic life events. If you approach everything with that much intensity, you're going to be exhausted before lunch. Personally, I prefer to just look at the facts, shrug my shoulders, and keep things moving without all the unnecessary noise. kaže:
Is being rational actually the same thing as striving for some kind of perfection, or are we just splitting hairs over semantics? It feels like we often conflate the two, acting as if being "rational" means you've somehow achieved an impossible standard of logic that leaves no room for error. In reality, I’ve always thought of rationality as more of a practical tool—a way to navigate the messiness of life without tripping over our own biases—whereas the drive toward an ideal is much more of a philosophical hunger. One is about making sense of the world as it exists, while the other is about chasing a version of the world that probably doesn't even exist outside of a textbook.

I’d say I'm inclined to agree.

I can't believe I'm actually typing this out, but there’s something about the way people talk about Adderall that just feels like we're all collectively ignoring the elephant in the room. It’s like watching someone try to fix a leaky faucet by just turning up the water pressure; sure, you might get a momentary burst of flow, but eventually, the whole thing is going to burst at the seams. We treat these stimulants like they're some kind of magic wand that can suddenly organize our chaotic lives, when in reality, they're more like a high-interest loan from a shady lender—you get the cash upfront to solve your immediate problem, but the interest rates on your mental health later on are going to be absolutely brutal. It isn't just about the focus; it's about how we've normalized using chemical shortcuts to keep pace with a society that demands we operate like overclocked processors 24/7. Honestly, if we weren't all running on fumes and caffeine, we probably wouldn't feel the need to reach for the heavy hitters just to finish a Tuesday. Asks:
Can someone living in a total utopia actually harbor the ambition to become God?

Why not? It seems pretty obvious to us now that the whole thing just comes down to a question of how advanced the technology actually gets. Basically, we're just waiting to see exactly how much of a leap forward it needs to be before it becomes a reality.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around how we ended up here, honestly. It feels like we’re all just collectively sleepwalking through this mess, waiting for someone to tap us on the shoulder and tell us everything is fine, even though we can clearly see the smoke rising from the horizon. It’s one of those situations where you know the engine is smoking, but everyone is too busy debating the color of the upholstery to actually pull over and fix the damn thing. You look at the way things are moving, and it’s less like a planned progression and more like a slow-motion car crash where everyone is arguing about who gets to control the radio while we’re heading straight for a concrete barrier. kaže:
Can you actually tell where the line is drawn between God and a human being in a perfect utopia? It’s one of those questions that makes you stare at the ceiling at three in the morning, wondering if we’re just talking about a difference in scale or if there’s a fundamental gap in our nature that no amount of societal perfection can bridge.

It’s just not possible to separate them. At the end of the day, God and man are one and the same.

I can't believe I'm actually typing this out, but here we go. It’s like watching a slow-motion car crash where everyone is too busy checking their phones to realize the bumper is already touching the guardrail. You see it everywhere lately—this absolute refusal to look at reality because the fantasy version is just a little bit more comfortable to live in. It’s the same pattern over and over again, honestly. People cling to these outdated ideas like they’re life rafts, even when the boat is clearly already underwater and sinking in the middle of the Atlantic. It’s almost impressive how much energy goes into maintaining a delusion, if you think about it that way. Instead of just admitting things have changed, people would rather argue with the concept of change itself. It's exhausting to watch, really. kaže:
Since we’re already dancing around this whole concept of God, I have to wonder: if we look at the actual definition of the word, isn't God inherently, radically individual by design?

That whole line of reasoning honestly loses its point. To me, God is just a metaphor for the Absolute. The Absolute is something radically individual, yet somehow manages to wrap up every possible multiplicity and specific detail within itself. It’s what is... It’s pretty radical, isn't it? That’s exactly why being "individualistic" is such a massive contradiction in terms; it’s practically the antithesis of what true individuality actually stands for.

fadedbison said:Here, take this and go hunt:

https://www.hegel.net/en/e0.htm

😁

BTW, I feel like this site could be the most exciting thing on the web for Sigmund. 😁
Super slammed lately so my posts might stay short or even unanswered. Later!

Well, not really. For instance, this is a bit more interesting: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/

But honestly, no single webpage is ever going to be truly "thrilling" when you're diving into Hegel. I usually find myself leaning much more heavily on actual books.

swifttiger75 said:I'll stop there. So, your point is that it’s impossible to integrate a personally realized spiritual truth into society without hitting a wall of conflict?

Beyond that, I think this "individual insight"—as you put it—necessarily shifts how a person views death, which essentially means facing the same fate as Jesus or Socrates. It naturally gives an individual the grit to stand up against the collective.

Great topic. 👍

That wasn't quite my angle, though it’s a pretty interesting question you've thrown out there. It didn't cross my mind initially, but seriously, can something like that be implemented without clashing with the collective? At a glance, I’d say yes, conflict isn't strictly mandatory.
But let me get back to what I was actually getting at. My point was that a spiritual truth discovered by a single person is essentially hollow if it remains trapped within that individual; it can't truly manifest unless it finds a home in society. Think about it—what would Jesus' message have even meant if it had stayed solely with him, unaccepted or even unheard by anyone else? It would have been nothing more than a dormant possibility, just one lost thought among millions. The crux of the matter is that society, as Aristotle pointed out, represents the minimum self-sufficient reality for humans, which is why total human freedom simply can't happen in a vacuum outside of a community. When Hegel discusses Ethical life—which, frankly, gets butchered in most translations of his philosophy of law as mere "custom"—and emphasizes the necessary symbiosis between the state and humanity, he's intentionally following that Aristotelian line of reasoning. There’s a bit of that romanticized idealization of the Greek polis going on there too, which is a whole different rabbit hole, but still.
In short, we're talking about the idea that our highest, most complete moral existence—or human existence in general—can only be achieved as members of a community, a society, or a state, whatever label you prefer. This is a fundamentally different concept from social contract theory, and especially from the utilitarian view of society acting as a mere tool for "happiness." To put it another way, society is a more complete, perhaps even truer, embodiment of the human spirit than any single individual could ever be.

swifttiger75 said:I'll stop there. So, your point is that it’s impossible to integrate a personally realized spiritual truth into society without hitting a wall of conflict?

Beyond that, I think this "individual insight"—as you put it—necessarily shifts how a person views death, which essentially means facing the same fate as Jesus or Socrates. It naturally gives an individual the grit to stand up against the collective.

Great topic. 👍

That lines up perfectly with the idea that sacrificing one's own life serves as proof that a person considers themselves to be something greater and more significant than just their basic, biological body. A person simply knows they aren't merely a collection of cells. In other words, they refuse to be *just* that. Or, quite simply, life isn't worth much if it can be reduced to nothing more than that.