Individual vs. Collective

Joseph Bailey41 said:A Hegelian triangle? Is that what you click when someone isn't making any sense? 🤔

Humans can strive for anything, even divinity. There's no law forbidding it (at least nothing published in The New York Times yet). But I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. An apotheosis for everyone? A spiritual elite? Those who can afford more? Just for yourself? If you could clarify, it would be easier to see if that actually fits with the idea of a utopia. Besides, what specific attributes or qualities would a person need to acquire to actually become God?

If you're a Hegelian 🙂

A person can strive for anything, even aiming to become a god. There isn't a single law on the books stopping that from happening—at least nothing that's been published in The Washington Post yet. But I'm struggling to see where you're actually going with this. Apotheosis for everyone? A spiritual elite? Just those with enough cash to buy their way in? Or maybe just specifically for you? You need to be more precise here, because it's hard to judge whether any of that would actually mesh with a utopia. Besides, what kind of attributes or positions would a person even need to acquire to ascend to godhood?

Sigmund pulled this thread out of our main conversation and moved it to its own topic, so I was actually responding to this specific post by Sigmund.

Sigmund said:The logic applies to communism too, much like what Žižek said when he was asked if God exists: He doesn't exist, but He is necessary as an ideal being. Similarly, communism isn't possible, but the striving toward its realization is absolutely necessary. We're talking about an uncompromising idealism—or, ultimately, a rational idea of the Good. In other words, if we are rational beings, we have to move toward communism. Any form of compromise or tactical maneuvering only makes sense within that specific context; otherwise, it’s just a total moral collapse.

I just added an "individualistic" variation to his point in bold: if we are rational, we have to move toward God...

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.

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.

Amanda Jackson5 said:

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.

Look, we’ve already established they aren't actually the same thing; humans exist in the realm of the real, while God exists in the realm of the ideal. If there isn't a fundamental distinction there, then the whole idea of a human striving to achieve godhood falls apart completely...

The question itself misses the point. God is essentially a metaphor for the Absolute. Now, the Absolute is radically individual, yet at the same time, it encompasses every possible multiplicity and particularity. It's precisely because something is radically individual that it stands as the pure opposite of mere individuality.

So, I suppose if individuals were to realize themselves as gods, they would become radically individualistic, which means they could never simultaneously work together as a society to build some kind of utopia.
That’s why, back when we first touched on this, I told you I saw these two arguments as being in total opposition—you could almost map them onto the classic American political divide between the left and the right.
In fact, I’d go a step further and say the concept of God makes zero sense within a utopia, just like the concept of a utopia makes absolutely no sense for a single God.

Amanda Jackson5 said:I actually dig this idea—that a utopia for society is just what God represents for a single person. But it raises the question: does God even have a place in a utopia? Or, looking at it from the other side, can there even be a utopia within God? Is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth essentially just a utopia?
Regardless, if we approach this through an ethical lens, it seems that ethics—or what Hegel refers to as Sittlichkeit—only really functions, or becomes achievable, within a society; in other words, within the collective. This is precisely what provides actual substance to moral obligation, which stands in stark contrast to the purely formal, almost hollow concept of ethics found in Kantian thought. Not only that, but it’s only within a social framework that such an obligation can actually be lived out, effectively closing the gap between how things "ought" to be and how they actually "are." Furthermore, true individual freedom only arrives once nature (which includes "primitive" societies or humans existing in a state of nature) is reorganized to meet the demands of reason. Taylor points out that this is exactly where Hegel pivots away from the typical moral leanings of
"This is the point where Hegel runs counter to the moral instinct of
liberalism then and now."
Because of these factors, trying to draw a hard line between the individual and the collective is pretty much a fool's errand; in reality, that separation rarely holds up under scrutiny.
People naturally tend to view their own personal morality as something far more foundational than social morality (that is, Sittlichkeit), mostly because a decent person is always at risk of having society demand they act against their own conscience (something Taylor notes is especially prevalent in an era defined by nationalism). Interestingly, he also mentions that Hegel’s two greatest inspirations, or his "heroes," were Socrates and Jesus. Both of them, in their own ways, disrupted or completely severed ties with the Sittlichkeit of their respective societies, and they paid for it with their lives. Yet, no matter how profound the spiritual truths a person uncovers, those truths can't be realized or embodied if that person remains entirely isolated. Radical individualism is a dead end. If someone refuses to compromise their truth, they are left with two choices: retreat from society entirely or go to war with it, in which case they’ll likely follow the path of Jesus or Socrates.

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.

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.

Amanda Jackson5 said: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.

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.

Whenever someone tries to expose the deep-seated mechanisms and attitudes that define and enforce the current American status quo, it usually triggers an automatic, herd-like backlash.

That opposition creates polarization.
And polarization leads straight to conflict.

Back in the day, it was about burning "heretics" and "witches" at the stake. Nowadays, it’s more about mocking or ostracizing anything that doesn't perfectly align with "science"—or whatever the status quo has decided qualifies as science.

Times change, sure, but the principles stay the same. And the root cause? Pure idiocy. Just a general deterioration of certain aspects of the collective consciousness.

Amanda Jackson5 said: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.

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.

Which is exactly why several schools of thought emphasize the importance of interpreting and controlling the "Ego," and developing those inter- and intra-personal cognitive abilities. That's basically the prerequisite for a broader perception of reality and acting in accordance with its actual principles.

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.

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 have to disagree with that take. Living among others isn't actually a requirement for survival.

Take certain indigenous tribes in the American West, for instance. To truly master solitude, one might undergo twenty-five years of isolation just to bond deeply enough with the wilderness to eventually pass down ancestral wisdom through nature itself.

There are plenty of other cases where people manage quite well on their own. You see folks living in remote caves or deep in the backcountry, surviving for hundreds of years in total seclusion, left entirely to their own devices and their own consciousness without any community at all...

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."

placidhawk21 said:I have to disagree with that take. Living among others isn't actually a requirement for survival.

Take certain indigenous tribes in the American West, for instance. To truly master solitude, one might undergo twenty-five years of isolation just to bond deeply enough with the wilderness to eventually pass down ancestral wisdom through nature itself.

There are plenty of other cases where people manage quite well on their own. You see folks living in remote caves or deep in the backcountry, surviving for hundreds of years in total seclusion, left entirely to their own devices and their own consciousness without any community at all...

Those are extreme outliers that only exist to prove the rule. A lone wolf might have a slim chance of making it, but those odds are incredibly low. It’s the exact same story for humans.

Amanda Jackson5 said: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."

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.

Amanda Jackson5 said: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.

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 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?

Perhaps that is the true trajectory of human history—a constant, winding path toward achieving both the perfect collective and the flawless individual.

But it begs the question: can a perfect society ever truly be built from the sum of imperfect people?

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.

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.

Amanda Jackson5 said:So if that's the case, why wouldn't a "contract" be possible at all?

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

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.

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

Amanda Jackson5 said:So if that's the case, why wouldn't a "contract" be possible at all?

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

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.

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.

On an individual level, everything’s pretty much demonic—just pure chaos—but when you get people acting together? That’s where the real magic happens, kind of angelic if you think about it

"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."