Political Crossfire Forums

Cato · Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 1274 Location: Ottawa, ON

Pure Individualism, or Methological Individualism, posits that men act without outside influences, that each individual is an island.

I think this is wrong, and here's why:

Choice is not informed by knowledge of outcome, it is informed by opinion of outcome. Opinion is the product of experience. Therefore, choice too is the product of experience. Moreover, experience is born of circumstance, and different environments provide different circumstances. Therefore, choice is the product of environment.

So, man's actions are born of his environment, and no man is an island.

wormwood · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 2670 Location: The P-Brane

Quote: Choice is not informed by knowledge of outcome, it is informed by opinion of outcome. Opinion is the product of experience. Therefore, choice too is the product of experience. Moreover, experience is born of circumstance, and different environments provide different circumstances. Therefore, choice is the product of environment.

This seems to make more of a case for individualism. Each person processes and assimilates the experiences differently, suggesting even given the same circumstances, people will react differently. If the choices we made were based on a "knowledge of outcome" we would not be individuals in that we would all know the correct response to every situation. So choice is not a product of environment, so much as it is a product of each individuals response to that environment.

Zoot · Joined: 30 Oct 2005 Posts: 2194

Not only that, but choice is made based on criteria. When one predicts the outcomes of various options - based, as you say, on past experience - one still cannot make a decision until one has evaluated the preferability of each of those options in terms of values (sets of criteria for evaluating those options).

Those values themselves must be provided to the person by his or her context, because if they were chosen by the person...

with what criteria did the person make that choice?

wormwood · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 2670 Location: The P-Brane

Quote: Not only that, but choice is made based on criteria. When one predicts the outcomes of various options - based, as you say, on past experience - one still cannot make a decision until one has evaluated the preferability of each of those options in terms of values (sets of criteria for evaluating those options).

Those values themselves must be provided to the person by his or her context, because if they were chosen by the person...

with what criteria did the person make that choice? Also, one must question, even if a preconceived "morality" plays a role in the decision making process, why are there differing sets of "morality" given that we are all faced with the same stimuli ( i.e. life on earth as a human being)? And still the choice ultimately lies with the individual to ignore any sort of social programing (via crime, deviant behavior, etc)

As for the notion that each man is an island, it is true to an extent. It is true when one considers that most people have several persona's. ( for example: is the "you" that talks to your mom or your priest the same "you" that hits on women in the bar, or talks to your drug dealer, or does whatever hidden thing that people do?) There is a true self that other people will never experience hidden somewhere beneath the masks. To that extent we are isolated and inaccessible.

Cato · Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 1274 Location: Ottawa, ON

Quote: This seems to make more of a case for individualism.

Interesting...

Quote: Each person processes and assimilates the experiences differently, suggesting even given the same circumstances, people will react differently.

Does each person process experience differently? Is what is red to me blue to you? Will we not both feel pain when touching a lit burner? Humans are fundamentally similar in faculty. The difference between humans seems to be in the predisposition of their minds toward certain choices.

Moreover, the experiences that inform each individual's choices are unique to each individual, and thus so are opinions unique to each individual. No two people lead identical existences, such would require that they walk inside each other. So, when given an identical choice, no two people can have an identical opinion of its outcome. Individuals do, however, lead similar existences, and thus can have similar opinions.

Quote: If the choices we made were based on a "knowledge of outcome" we would not be individuals in that we would all know the correct response to every situation.

Oh, but wouldn't we be individuals then? Who cares if we make similar choices, if we do it's because they're common-sense. With knowledge of outcome, opinion wouldn't exist, and so experience wouldn't necessarily be required to make choices. But without knowledge of outcome, we must act on opinion, and opinion comes from experience. Keep in mind that by 'experience' I mean anything perceived, including the opinions of others through dialog. If we cannot make independent choices, we cannot call ourselves completely independent.

Quote: So choice is not a product of environment, so much as it is a product of each individuals response to that environment.

Where did this come from? A choice is a response to one's environment. Also, remember that past choices lead to experiences that inform future choices; no choice is born from the air.

wormwood · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 2670 Location: The P-Brane

Quote: Does each person process experience differently? Is what is red to me blue to you? Perhaps, is there any definitive way of knowing that this is not the case? Also, just seeing "red" for example, does not qualify as an experience, there is how I interpret red, what does it mean to me, what significance was there to notice red? What do I do with the information?

Quote: Will we not both feel pain when touching a lit burner? Not to the same degree. Also, if I were a shaolin monk I would not register pain at all. (see photo's of Vietnamese monks setting themselves on fire in protest of the war).

Quote: Humans are fundamentally similar in faculty. The difference between humans seems to be in the predisposition of their minds toward certain choices. So you are choosing nature over nurture? The we are born with our personalities in tact more or less, is that your position? If so, that is an even bigger argument for individualism.

Quote: Moreover, the experiences that inform each individual's choices are unique to each individual, and thus so are opinions unique to each individual. No two people lead identical existences, such would require that they walk inside each other. So, when given an identical choice, no two people can have an identical opinion of its outcome. Individuals do, however, lead similar existences, and thus can have similar opinions This also sounds like an argument for individualism. The fact that no two people can lead the same existence points to individual thought. Even if we were both in the exact same situation, we would respond differently, this is "individual" response.

Quote: Oh, but wouldn't we be individuals then? Who cares if we make similar choices, if we do it's because they're common-sense "Common sense" is subjective (individual), and not "common" at all. We would cease to be individuals because there would be no personal interpretation of choice, everything would just be done according to correctness of choice, but still one must look at the ends being accomplished. For example, just knowing what the outcome of any given situation would be, does not mean that all people would desire to accomplish the same things. So either way, there are still individual desires which drive the will of nations etc.

Quote: Keep in mind that by 'experience' I mean anything perceived, including the opinions of others through dialog. If we cannot make independent choices, we cannot call ourselves completely independent. I see where you are coming from with this, and yes outside opinions can "shape" personal opinion, but ultimately it is up to the individual to make the choice.

In the context of absolute corrupted thought, how did these thoughts get set into motion in the first place? How do new ideas come about? Where do martyrs fit in? How about deviants? I blame modern psychology for your views 8:)

Quote: Where did this come from? A choice is a response to one's environment. Also, remember that past choices lead to experiences that inform future choices; no choice is born from the air. Everything has a beginning. Also, to clarify, I was stating that unlike your presumption that choice is a product of environment, that it is an individual response to that environment, and not something inherent in the nature of the environment itself.

Cato · Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 1274 Location: Ottawa, ON

Quote: . . .just seeing "red" for example, does not qualify as an experience, there is how I interpret red, what does it mean to me, what significance was there to notice red? What do I do with the information?

You're wrong; perceiving the colour is the experience.

Quote: Not to the same degree. Also, if I were a shaolin monk I would not register pain at all.

Human beings feel pain when touching a burner. Human beings perceive light and sound. Human beings can't fly by flapping their arms. Human beings are similar in faculty.

Quote: So you are choosing nature over nurture? The we are born with our personalities in tact more or less, is that your position? If so, that is an even bigger argument for individualism.

Nowhere did I suggest that we're born with personalities; don't be presumptuous.

Quote: "Common sense" is subjective (individual), and not "common" at all.

Common sense is so called because it is common. Pure Individualism holds that all trends are common sense movements. I think this is absurd.

Quote: We would cease to be individuals because there would be no personal interpretation of choice, everything would just be done according to correctness of choice, but still one must look at the ends being accomplished.

The end an action aims toward is not the outcome. I cannot have knowledge of the outcome, so I rely on opinion. Opinion is born of experience. So, I cannot make choices divorced of experience. Please, try to stay with the argument.

Quote: For example, just knowing what the outcome of any given situation would be, does not mean that all people would desire to accomplish the same things.

Okay.. What's your point?

Quote: I see where you are coming from with this, and yes outside opinions can "shape" personal opinion, but ultimately it is up to the individual to make the choice.

And the individual's choice is based on opinion and not knowledge of outcome. So, the individual is reliant on experience.

Quote: In the context of absolute corrupted thought, how did these thoughts get set into motion in the first place? How do new ideas come about? Where do martyrs fit in? How about deviants?

Unique experiences breed unique people, as I've been saying.

Quote: Everything has a beginning. Also, to clarify, I was stating that unlike your presumption that choice is a product of environment, that it is an individual response to that environment, and not something inherent in the nature of the environment itself

My presumption? No, it's an argued point.

What do you mean by 'individual response'? Choice is an individual's response to his environment, yes. It is also a product of that environment. If you wish to refute me, you must actually address the argument I'm making.

The Grandmaster

Cato wrote: Pure Individualism, or Methological Individualism, posits that men act without outside influences, that each individual is an island.

I think this is wrong, and here's why:

Choice is not informed by knowledge of outcome, it is informed by opinion of outcome. Opinion is the product of experience. Therefore, choice too is the product of experience. Moreover, experience is born of circumstance, and different environments provide different circumstances. Therefore, choice is the product of environment.

So, man's actions are born of his environment, and no man is an island.

What? Of course? Why would anyone think otherwise? Does anyone really believe the world around us and the experiences of our lives actually don’t play a part in our decisions!?

Cato · Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 1274 Location: Ottawa, ON

Quote: Does anyone really believe the world around us and the experiences of our lives actually don’t play a part in our decisions!?

Yes, it's the premise behind the theories of such thinkers as Ayn Rand.

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5537 Location: Dreamland, NC

Cato wrote: Quote: Does anyone really believe the world around us and the experiences of our lives actually don’t play a part in our decisions!?

Yes, it's the premise behind the theories of such thinkers as Ayn Rand.

I think Rand put both theories into place during Atlas Shrugged without actually knowing it. While she tremendously suported individual rights throughout the book she also noted the importance of the city of Atlantis. Atlantis of course was the city of the productive. It was a place where the individual was apart of the collective not serving the collective. Rand understood that the individual is nothing without the support of a society.

wormwood · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 2670 Location: The P-Brane

Quote: Nowhere did I suggest that we're born with personalities; don't be presumptuous Ok what DID you mean by this statement then?
Quote: predisposition of their minds toward certain choices
Were you saying that the only differentiating factors between people were some other predisposing issues like society perhaps?

Quote: Common sense is so called because it is common. Obviously you are using common as a relative term here. If not, how do you explain there being so many differing versions of "common sense" ?

Quote: Pure Individualism holds that all trends are common sense movements. I think this is absurd. Yeah me too, just look at the 70's 8:)

Quote: Opinion is born of experience. So, I cannot make choices divorced of experience. What about when faced with a new situation? What about abstract things like love for example? Experience and wisdom tells you not to do things that are detrimental to your own life, but when love enters the equation we are on an instinctual level that seems to supersede judgment and rationale.

Quote: Please, try to stay with the argument. Sorry, I was under the impression that you were referring to individualism as an abstract, not the formal philosophical continuum. My mistake.

Quote: And the individual's choice is based on opinion and not knowledge of outcome. So, the individual is reliant on experience. What about "mob mentality" ?

Quote: What do you mean by 'individual response'? Choice is an individual's response to his environment, yes. It is also a product of that environment . This is where we seem to get lost in semantics, what do you mean product of the environment? Are you or are you not saying directly or indirectly that people are incapable of making choices based on anything other than experience?

The Good Doctor · Joined: 07 Jan 2006 Posts: 342

Cato wrote: Quote: Does anyone really believe the world around us and the experiences of our lives actually don’t play a part in our decisions!?

Yes, it's the premise behind the theories of such thinkers as Ayn Rand.

Actually, you more or less articulated the epistemological beliefs of Ayn Rand. She would, I believe agree with you.

SeamushMacEoghain · Joined: 09 Dec 2004 Posts: 1059

Quote: Does each person process experience differently? Is what is red to me blue to you? Will we not both feel pain when touching a lit burner?

I would say that the process of having expierences are recorded in the same way but the process that determines the expierences significance differs from individual to individual. It is easily explainable for the color you expierence as being "red" to be a different color to someone else. If an individual was raised in the idea that red is blue (words in of themselves describing stimuli) that person would be expierencing "blue" even though the stimuli was the same as one who saw it and said "red". As far as pain goes the stimuli once again is the same but the stimui does not dictate the expierence or future reactions based upon the expierence. For instance a masochist feels pain and associates this stimuli with a euphoric expierence were another might associate something completely different. Hence the stimuli does not dictate completely how one judges the expierence and their future considerations of said expierence.

Quote: Keep in mind that by 'experience' I mean anything perceived, including the opinions of others through dialog. If we cannot make independent choices, we cannot call ourselves completely independent.

If one hears many opinions through dialog and makes a choice that is similiar to anothers choice isn't the very act of making a choice independent?

Quote: A choice is a response to one's environment. Also, remember that past choices lead to experiences that inform future choices; no choice is born from the air.

What about the first time one expierences a certain stimuli would this choice not be "born from the air"?