Individual vs. Collective

addx said:I see it somewhat as the individual versus the collective.

A utopia for society is essentially what God is for the individual.

The relationship between man and society is the tension between the individual and the collective.

Does it even make sense to have God in a utopia?

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

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.

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'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. 👍

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. 👍

In my view, social ethics (Sittlichkeit 🙂) cannot actually evolve without the catalyst of radical individualism.
Both Jesus and Socrates underwent what could be described as heroic deaths—there have certainly been others like them—only to be "rehabilitated" by history. Eventually, society integrated their truths, and those very principles became foundational elements of our modern social fabric, much like the men themselves served as archetypes of radical individualism.

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.

Sandra Murphy33 said:In my view, social ethics (Sittlichkeit 🙂) cannot actually evolve without the catalyst of radical individualism.
Both Jesus and Socrates underwent what could be described as heroic deaths—there have certainly been others like them—only to be "rehabilitated" by history. Eventually, society integrated their truths, and those very principles became foundational elements of our modern social fabric, much like the men themselves served as archetypes of radical individualism.

I'm basically on board. I'll add my two cents in my response to Sigmund.

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.

I think the actual issue—the mechanics of how we transfer and implement these ideas—is where things get interesting. It makes me wonder if an implementation that doesn't trigger massive friction or pushback would actually speed up society’s evolution toward those higher moral and existential standards.
But I have to wonder—is the sacrifice of a single individual, that initial act of resistance, actually the necessary spark required to make the seed take root in fertile soil?

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.

Building on what Neo wrote—it really comes down to the individual. Only a single person can reach that level of understanding and actually push it into society. From a purely poetic standpoint, he’s fulfilled his purpose and is passing away. It reminds me a bit of how an ant colony functions; every single worker exists solely to feed the queen, either directly or indirectly.

I'm with you on that. Society is just a more complete—maybe even more truthful—embodiment of the human spirit than any single individual could ever be.I’d just add that an individual can actually experience that sense of unity—that feeling of being whole—through their own realization. Society, though? It’s a different story. No matter how much you try to feed it or fix it, society will always remain incomplete. It’ll just stay stuck in that constant, restless striving.

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.

Grid:

😬

Does the rational imperative require us to strive toward the ideal?

Can a person living in a utopia strive to become God themselves?

Can God, within a utopia, be distinguished from humanity?

In any case, if we’re looking at this through an ethical lens, it seems that ethics (or what Hegel refers to as Sittlichkeit) only truly makes sense—or is even achievable—within a society, within the collective. That’s what provides the actual substance to moral obligation, which stands in stark contrast to the purely formal, hollow concept of ethics proposed by Kant. Beyond that, it’s only within a social framework that such an obligation can actually be realized; it's the only way to bridge the gap between how things "ought" to be and how they actually "are." Furthermore, true individual freedom only arrives when nature (which includes those "primitive" human communities in their natural state) is restructured to meet the demands of reason. Taylor points out that this is precisely where Hegel deviates from the moral intuition of
"This is the point where Hegel runs counter to the moral instinct of
liberalism then and now."
Partly because of this, it’s impossible to truly decouple the individual from the collective; in fact, trying to separate them usually flies in the face of reality.
People have this tendency to view their personal morality as something far more fundamental than social morality (that is, more important than Sittlichkeit), largely because a moral person always faces the lurking danger that their society might demand they act against their own conscience ("And particularly so in an age of nationalism.", as Taylor puts it). Interestingly, he also notes that Hegel’s two greatest inspirations, his "heroes," were Socrates and Jesus. Both men, in their own way, undermined or even broke away from the Sittlichkeit of their respective societies, and they paid for it with their lives. However, no matter how profound the spiritual truths a person uncovers, those truths cannot be realized or embodied if that person remains isolated. Radical individualism is a dead end. If someone refuses to compromise their truth, they are forced either to withdraw from society entirely or to go to war with it, inevitably facing the same fate as Jesus or Socrates.

I remember once, I think it was in a different chat thread, when I was asked about the essence of being human, I gave a brief answer: that a human is simply a reflection in another person. Looking at this quote of yours and your previous posts, I feel like that same argument is running through everything you're saying here.

On another note, I’d argue that Jesus was radically individualistic by design (being the Son of God and all...), and while it occurred to me that a conflict isn't strictly necessary, it can certainly serve as a catalyst or an amplifier. I'm mostly thinking about that ultimate sacrifice, which, naturally, would have to be preceded by some kind of confrontation...

Since we’re already diving into this whole concept of God: does the very definition of the term imply that God is, by nature, radically individual?

P.S. Does the tension between the individual and the collective follow its own Hegel triangle? Is there some kind of synthesis that happens when you finally bridge those two worlds? 😬

hiddeneagle98 said:Grid:

individual collective

real human society

ideal God utopia

😬

Does the rational imperative require us to strive toward the ideal?

Can a person living in a utopia strive to become God themselves?

Can God, within a utopia, be distinguished from humanity?

In any case, if we’re looking at this through an ethical lens, it seems that ethics (or what Hegel refers to as Sittlichkeit) only truly makes sense—or is even achievable—within a society, within the collective. That’s what provides the actual substance to moral obligation, which stands in stark contrast to the purely formal, hollow concept of ethics proposed by Kant. Beyond that, it’s only within a social framework that such an obligation can actually be realized; it's the only way to bridge the gap between how things "ought" to be and how they actually "are." Furthermore, true individual freedom only arrives when nature (which includes those "primitive" human communities in their natural state) is restructured to meet the demands of reason. Taylor points out that this is precisely where Hegel deviates from the moral intuition of
"This is the point where Hegel runs counter to the moral instinct of
liberalism then and now."
Partly because of this, it’s impossible to truly decouple the individual from the collective; in fact, trying to separate them usually flies in the face of reality.
People have this tendency to view their personal morality as something far more fundamental than social morality (that is, more important than Sittlichkeit), largely because a moral person always faces the lurking danger that their society might demand they act against their own conscience ("And particularly so in an age of nationalism.", as Taylor puts it). Interestingly, he also notes that Hegel’s two greatest inspirations, his "heroes," were Socrates and Jesus. Both men, in their own way, undermined or even broke away from the Sittlichkeit of their respective societies, and they paid for it with their lives. However, no matter how profound the spiritual truths a person uncovers, those truths cannot be realized or embodied if that person remains isolated. Radical individualism is a dead end. If someone refuses to compromise their truth, they are forced either to withdraw from society entirely or to go to war with it, inevitably facing the same fate as Jesus or Socrates.

I remember once, I think it was in a different chat thread, when I was asked about the essence of being human, I gave a brief answer: that a human is simply a reflection in another person. Looking at this quote of yours and your previous posts, I feel like that same argument is running through everything you're saying here.

On another note, I’d argue that Jesus was radically individualistic by design (being the Son of God and all...), and while it occurred to me that a conflict isn't strictly necessary, it can certainly serve as a catalyst or an amplifier. I'm mostly thinking about that ultimate sacrifice, which, naturally, would have to be preceded by some kind of confrontation...

Since we’re already diving into this whole concept of God: does the very definition of the term imply that God is, by nature, radically individual?

P.S. Does the tension between the individual and the collective follow its own Hegel triangle? Is there some kind of synthesis that happens when you finally bridge those two worlds? 😬

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!

hiddeneagle98 said:Grid:

individual collective

real human society

ideal God utopia

😬

Does the rational imperative require us to strive toward the ideal?

Can a person living in a utopia strive to become God themselves?

Can God, within a utopia, be distinguished from humanity?

In any case, if we’re looking at this through an ethical lens, it seems that ethics (or what Hegel refers to as Sittlichkeit) only truly makes sense—or is even achievable—within a society, within the collective. That’s what provides the actual substance to moral obligation, which stands in stark contrast to the purely formal, hollow concept of ethics proposed by Kant. Beyond that, it’s only within a social framework that such an obligation can actually be realized; it's the only way to bridge the gap between how things "ought" to be and how they actually "are." Furthermore, true individual freedom only arrives when nature (which includes those "primitive" human communities in their natural state) is restructured to meet the demands of reason. Taylor points out that this is precisely where Hegel deviates from the moral intuition of
"This is the point where Hegel runs counter to the moral instinct of
liberalism then and now."
Partly because of this, it’s impossible to truly decouple the individual from the collective; in fact, trying to separate them usually flies in the face of reality.
People have this tendency to view their personal morality as something far more fundamental than social morality (that is, more important than Sittlichkeit), largely because a moral person always faces the lurking danger that their society might demand they act against their own conscience ("And particularly so in an age of nationalism.", as Taylor puts it). Interestingly, he also notes that Hegel’s two greatest inspirations, his "heroes," were Socrates and Jesus. Both men, in their own way, undermined or even broke away from the Sittlichkeit of their respective societies, and they paid for it with their lives. However, no matter how profound the spiritual truths a person uncovers, those truths cannot be realized or embodied if that person remains isolated. Radical individualism is a dead end. If someone refuses to compromise their truth, they are forced either to withdraw from society entirely or to go to war with it, inevitably facing the same fate as Jesus or Socrates.

I remember once, I think it was in a different chat thread, when I was asked about the essence of being human, I gave a brief answer: that a human is simply a reflection in another person. Looking at this quote of yours and your previous posts, I feel like that same argument is running through everything you're saying here.

On another note, I’d argue that Jesus was radically individualistic by design (being the Son of God and all...), and while it occurred to me that a conflict isn't strictly necessary, it can certainly serve as a catalyst or an amplifier. I'm mostly thinking about that ultimate sacrifice, which, naturally, would have to be preceded by some kind of confrontation...

Since we’re already diving into this whole concept of God: does the very definition of the term imply that God is, by nature, radically individual?

P.S. Does the tension between the individual and the collective follow its own Hegel triangle? Is there some kind of synthesis that happens when you finally bridge those two worlds? 😬

Are you referring to this? 👍
Isn't the whole point of being human to be? ☕

Casey Gomez said:Are you referring to this? 👍
Isn't the whole point of being human to be? ☕

Not quite, though you're definitely heading in the right direction; I'm certain that specific system plays a role in all of this.

At the end of the day, a person needs other people. We need that reflection from someone else, that back-and-forth exchange, just to maintain our very essence and actually feel fulfilled. Deep down, a human being is inherently incomplete, and we use these social interactions and reflections as a way to try and bridge that gap to become whole—even if we never truly succeed in doing so completely. If you take a person and drop them alone on a deserted island, something inside them starts to die off, it atrophies, and they eventually dwindle down into nothing more than some kind of zombie survivor.

Isn't the true essence of a human being found in simply being? ☕

I honestly think everything has its own way of being, so I don't really see how the act of being touches the core of humanity any more than anything else does, right?

hiddeneagle98 said:Not quite, though you're definitely heading in the right direction; I'm certain that specific system plays a role in all of this.

At the end of the day, a person needs other people. We need that reflection from someone else, that back-and-forth exchange, just to maintain our very essence and actually feel fulfilled. Deep down, a human being is inherently incomplete, and we use these social interactions and reflections as a way to try and bridge that gap to become whole—even if we never truly succeed in doing so completely. If you take a person and drop them alone on a deserted island, something inside them starts to die off, it atrophies, and they eventually dwindle down into nothing more than some kind of zombie survivor.

Isn't the true essence of a human being found in simply being? ☕

I honestly think everything has its own way of being, so I don't really see how the act of being touches the core of humanity any more than anything else does, right?

I see you applying that whole "herd instinct" logic here...☕.....you're suggesting a little right-wing drift isn't such a bad thing. 👍

I suppose everything becomes, so I don't see how existing touches the core of being human any more than anything else might?

Well, I guess when nothing really touches the core of being human anymore...
...☕

Quote : as British philosopher Martin Cohen Has put IT

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.

Quote : as British philosopher Martin Cohen Has put IT

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.

At first glance, these two paragraphs seemed to contradict one another to me—I mean, how could a society that actually values reason end up executing Socrates? And honestly, what’s the connection between using logic and having faith in Jesus?
I decided to do a little digging online. The first thing that caught my eye while scrolling through Wikipedia was this:

As British philosopher Martin Cohen Has put IT, "Plato, the idealist, offers an idol, a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of 'the Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his teachings as a heretic."

So, there’s definitely a link between Jesus and Socrates (at least the version we get from Plato), but honestly, it feels purely symbolic. From a Catholic theological standpoint, Jesus is God. And if you believe God is all-powerful, then walking around the Earth, dying, and heading back to heaven isn't exactly a massive sacrifice—it's more like a stroll. There's nothing truly "heroic" about it in that sense. It just feels like one of those twisted paradoxes that I can't quite wrap my head around.

So, I ended up diving into some history regarding Socrates, and honestly, from what I can gather, he was a much more complex figure than I originally thought. It’s a more complex personality.

I found a really interesting summary of the book *Why Socrates Died: Dispelling The Myths* over on Quora:

I. F. Ston argues that Socrates himself deliberately put on a bad defense as he was interested in a really good show trial and (if it came to that) a really dramatic death. Honestly, looking back, it seems like Socrates—at seventy years old—was basically a performance artist and a total public attention troll.

To be honest, spending more time with old Socrates just makes me like him even more. But at the same time, it really makes me second-guess that whole idea that when a free thinker tries to push their vision onto society, it almost always ends in tragedy. It feels like there's this recurring pattern where the individual is violently sacrificed just to fuel an idea that’s bigger than they are—an idea that ultimately ends up benefiting the very society that turned its back on them.

I honestly feel like we’re dealing with a kind of mythology baked right into our collective consciousness. It seems designed to stop anyone from actually questioning the social contract we live under today. It’s basically a built-in warning system: "Don't rock the boat, or you'll end up like Socrates or Jesus."

I’ve always had a soft spot for that old socialist mantra: "individual happiness is the collective's success." 😁

hiddeneagle98 said:Not quite, though you're definitely heading in the right direction; I'm certain that specific system plays a role in all of this.

At the end of the day, a person needs other people. We need that reflection from someone else, that back-and-forth exchange, just to maintain our very essence and actually feel fulfilled. Deep down, a human being is inherently incomplete, and we use these social interactions and reflections as a way to try and bridge that gap to become whole—even if we never truly succeed in doing so completely. If you take a person and drop them alone on a deserted island, something inside them starts to die off, it atrophies, and they eventually dwindle down into nothing more than some kind of zombie survivor.

Isn't the true essence of a human being found in simply being? ☕

I honestly think everything has its own way of being, so I don't really see how the act of being touches the core of humanity any more than anything else does, right?

So, the guy played by Tom Hanks actually tried "talking" to Woodrow Wilson—which was just a volleyball—since he had nobody else left.

@La baba yaga

What are you even talking about when you say "dead right-wingism"?

James Lee77 said:So, the guy played by Tom Hanks actually tried "talking" to Woodrow Wilson—which was just a volleyball—since he had nobody else left.

That’s exactly what I was getting at. Even Sigmund Freud touched on this idea—that Jesus' radical individualism wouldn't even hold water if it were kept strictly "private" rather than being out in the public sphere.

Solitude, isolation, or just a total lack of community can have perhaps the most devastating impact on a person, especially on that core "humanity" within them. It actually reminds me of a documentary worth watching based on true events regarding the Deepwater Horizon era—well, specifically about a sailing race. There was this one around 1968, which felt like the first and maybe only race of its kind. All the competitors were out there completely solo; back then, without GPS, satellites, or any modern comms, they were truly alone on the water. The story follows this one guy who basically enters as an amateur, loses his nerve, and ends up anchoring himself off the coast of South America, just waiting for the race to end so he could head back to port without ever actually circling the globe (since nobody was really tracking them anyway). He faked his logs and lived in this state of constant paranoia. Among the racers was this Frenchman, I think he might have been some kind of philosopher, Bernard Moitessier who actually managed to circumnavigate the world. He was supposed to hit the finish line first, but just a few miles from the goal, he had a change of heart and decided to go around the world one more time just to follow a dream. I think he had a wife and kids waiting for him, but something just snapped in his head... if I remember correctly, he wrote a book about it later, which might be worth a read. In the end, only one person finished, the whole thing was a mess, and nothing like it ever happened again—at least not quite like that.

In a pure nature setting, a person would achieve very little for their own sake; life would dwindle down to mere survival, and whatever humanity they possessed would either atrophy or drive them insane. Woodrow Wilson is really just a way to delay that inevitable decay.
Practically every human achievement that elevated us above the animal kingdom was driven, in one way or another, by the "energy of society."

Would Jesus or Socrates have become who they were if it weren't for—from their perspective—the flaws of society? Their radical individualism is essentially a reflection of what is wrong with the collective; it wouldn't have any meaning without that society to dance against.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Quote : as British philosopher Martin Cohen Has put IT

Quote : as British philosopher Martin Cohen Has put IT

At first glance, these two paragraphs seemed to contradict one another to me—I mean, how could a society that actually values reason end up executing Socrates? And honestly, what’s the connection between using logic and having faith in Jesus?
I decided to do a little digging online. The first thing that caught my eye while scrolling through Wikipedia was this:

As British philosopher Martin Cohen Has put IT, "Plato, the idealist, offers an idol, a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of 'the Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his teachings as a heretic."

So, there’s definitely a link between Jesus and Socrates (at least the version we get from Plato), but honestly, it feels purely symbolic. From a Catholic theological standpoint, Jesus is God. And if you believe God is all-powerful, then walking around the Earth, dying, and heading back to heaven isn't exactly a massive sacrifice—it's more like a stroll. There's nothing truly "heroic" about it in that sense. It just feels like one of those twisted paradoxes that I can't quite wrap my head around.

So, I ended up diving into some history regarding Socrates, and honestly, from what I can gather, he was a much more complex figure than I originally thought. It’s a more complex personality.

I found a really interesting summary of the book *Why Socrates Died: Dispelling The Myths* over on Quora:

I. F. Ston argues that Socrates himself deliberately put on a bad defense as he was interested in a really good show trial and (if it came to that) a really dramatic death. Honestly, looking back, it seems like Socrates—at seventy years old—was basically a performance artist and a total public attention troll.

To be honest, spending more time with old Socrates just makes me like him even more. But at the same time, it really makes me second-guess that whole idea that when a free thinker tries to push their vision onto society, it almost always ends in tragedy. It feels like there's this recurring pattern where the individual is violently sacrificed just to fuel an idea that’s bigger than they are—an idea that ultimately ends up benefiting the very society that turned its back on them.

I honestly feel like we’re dealing with a kind of mythology baked right into our collective consciousness. It seems designed to stop anyone from actually questioning the social contract we live under today. It’s basically a built-in warning system: "Don't rock the boat, or you'll end up like Socrates or Jesus."

I’ve always had a soft spot for that old socialist mantra: "individual happiness is the collective's success." 😁

People spin all sorts of fairy tales about the conflict between the individual and the collective. It’s mostly just an attempt to sugarcoat reality—to make something ugly or tragic look palatable when it’s actually just plain grim.

hiddeneagle98 said:@La baba yaga

What are you even talking about when you say "dead right-wingism"?

That’s exactly what I was getting at. Even Sigmund Freud touched on this idea—that Jesus' radical individualism wouldn't even hold water if it were kept strictly "private" rather than being out in the public sphere.

Solitude, isolation, or just a total lack of community can have perhaps the most devastating impact on a person, especially on that core "humanity" within them. It actually reminds me of a documentary worth watching based on true events regarding the Deepwater Horizon era—well, specifically about a sailing race. There was this one around 1968, which felt like the first and maybe only race of its kind. All the competitors were out there completely solo; back then, without GPS, satellites, or any modern comms, they were truly alone on the water. The story follows this one guy who basically enters as an amateur, loses his nerve, and ends up anchoring himself off the coast of South America, just waiting for the race to end so he could head back to port without ever actually circling the globe (since nobody was really tracking them anyway). He faked his logs and lived in this state of constant paranoia. Among the racers was this Frenchman, I think he might have been some kind of philosopher, Bernard Moitessier who actually managed to circumnavigate the world. He was supposed to hit the finish line first, but just a few miles from the goal, he had a change of heart and decided to go around the world one more time just to follow a dream. I think he had a wife and kids waiting for him, but something just snapped in his head... if I remember correctly, he wrote a book about it later, which might be worth a read. In the end, only one person finished, the whole thing was a mess, and nothing like it ever happened again—at least not quite like that.

In a pure nature setting, a person would achieve very little for their own sake; life would dwindle down to mere survival, and whatever humanity they possessed would either atrophy or drive them insane. Woodrow Wilson is really just a way to delay that inevitable decay.
Practically every human achievement that elevated us above the animal kingdom was driven, in one way or another, by the "energy of society."

Would Jesus or Socrates have become who they were if it weren't for—from their perspective—the flaws of society? Their radical individualism is essentially a reflection of what is wrong with the collective; it wouldn't have any meaning without that society to dance against.

You’re sitting here lecturing about pack mentality... acting like you’ve actually figured out what it means to be a human being... which immediately reminded me of that whole "patriotism" nonsense. Honestly, I think right-wing politics is just nothing more than a highly politicized version of that exact same pack instinct.☕>

As Søren Kierkegaard once put it... human existence ultimately boils down to our relationship with others... though he was an existentialist, not an idealist.

Other people as the essence of humanity? It’s complicated....

"Hell is other people," according to Sartre.
(Essentially, we are defined by the gaze of others.)

But there is also this:
"All the world's troubles stem from man's inability to sit quietly in his room," as Pascal put it. Though, back then, you couldn't just broadcast your entire life from your bedroom like we do now... which makes the internet the ultimate intrusion into our private space. 😉

There are plenty of other perspectives, but those were the first ones to come to mind.

The witch is tagging addx said:So you're talking about herd mentality... like how people stop acting like individuals... which totally reminds me of "patriotism"... honestly, I think right-wing politics is just a super politicized version of that herd instinct...☕

First off, addx never even mentioned herd mentality. Second, patriotism isn't some exclusive club for the "right wing." And third, calling it a "politicized herd instinct" is just wrong. That’s three massive misses in such a short post. 🙂

fadedbison said:First off, addx never even mentioned herd mentality. Second, patriotism isn't some exclusive club for the "right wing." And third, calling it a "politicized herd instinct" is just wrong. That’s three massive misses in such a short post. 🙂

No, he was talking about "reflection in the other" as a fundamental part of being human... the idea of mirroring oneself... honestly, I’ll admit I didn't quite grasp that specific point... I mean, what is the core essence of a human being needing to mirror themselves in someone else? ☕
But where did we lose our way... ah, yes... mirroring... 👍 ...for a human to feel that need for reflection, that impulse has to emerge from somewhere, right onto center stage... consciousness, I suppose? Now, here’s a bonus question for anyone who has spent a year breathing in the residue of chemtrail aerosols: where does that drive come from? 🤷 This urge to mirror oneself within the collective—or ultimately, to follow the collective? 🤷
So, you get one attempt at an answer. 🙂
Generally speaking, I didn't claim patriotism belongs solely to the right... it's just that the right tends to have more intense feelings of love for the homeland... and the cross, right? Basically, everyone gets a little romantic in their own version of herd exaltation, so I’m being a bit cynical... I mean... it shouldn't be hard to read between the lines... 😳

Besides, a person doesn't need another human being "to become whole"... if they are already insisting on wholeness, some unreachable ideal... which means Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, David and even 👍

hiddeneagle98 said:Grid:

individual collective

real human society

ideal God utopia

😬

Does the rational imperative require us to strive toward the ideal?

Can a person living in a utopia strive to become God themselves?

Can God, within a utopia, be distinguished from humanity?

In any case, if we’re looking at this through an ethical lens, it seems that ethics (or what Hegel refers to as Sittlichkeit) only truly makes sense—or is even achievable—within a society, within the collective. That’s what provides the actual substance to moral obligation, which stands in stark contrast to the purely formal, hollow concept of ethics proposed by Kant. Beyond that, it’s only within a social framework that such an obligation can actually be realized; it's the only way to bridge the gap between how things "ought" to be and how they actually "are." Furthermore, true individual freedom only arrives when nature (which includes those "primitive" human communities in their natural state) is restructured to meet the demands of reason. Taylor points out that this is precisely where Hegel deviates from the moral intuition of
"This is the point where Hegel runs counter to the moral instinct of
liberalism then and now."
Partly because of this, it’s impossible to truly decouple the individual from the collective; in fact, trying to separate them usually flies in the face of reality.
People have this tendency to view their personal morality as something far more fundamental than social morality (that is, more important than Sittlichkeit), largely because a moral person always faces the lurking danger that their society might demand they act against their own conscience ("And particularly so in an age of nationalism.", as Taylor puts it). Interestingly, he also notes that Hegel’s two greatest inspirations, his "heroes," were Socrates and Jesus. Both men, in their own way, undermined or even broke away from the Sittlichkeit of their respective societies, and they paid for it with their lives. However, no matter how profound the spiritual truths a person uncovers, those truths cannot be realized or embodied if that person remains isolated. Radical individualism is a dead end. If someone refuses to compromise their truth, they are forced either to withdraw from society entirely or to go to war with it, inevitably facing the same fate as Jesus or Socrates.

I remember once, I think it was in a different chat thread, when I was asked about the essence of being human, I gave a brief answer: that a human is simply a reflection in another person. Looking at this quote of yours and your previous posts, I feel like that same argument is running through everything you're saying here.

On another note, I’d argue that Jesus was radically individualistic by design (being the Son of God and all...), and while it occurred to me that a conflict isn't strictly necessary, it can certainly serve as a catalyst or an amplifier. I'm mostly thinking about that ultimate sacrifice, which, naturally, would have to be preceded by some kind of confrontation...

Since we’re already diving into this whole concept of God: does the very definition of the term imply that God is, by nature, radically individual?

P.S. Does the tension between the individual and the collective follow its own Hegel triangle? Is there some kind of synthesis that happens when you finally bridge those two worlds? 😬

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?