individual vs collective

[GE Morton]

Facile nonsense.

What is the "nonsense"? Complex adaptive systems? The differences between CAS's and organisms?

???

[Pattern-chaser]

No society has the same structure as a different society. And of course societies vary as the number of members increases sharply. But all societies remain social groupings of humans, working co-operatively.

That is all true enough, for the most part, but while most people work cooperatively with certain others at certain times and for certain purposes, they are not all working cooperatively toward some goal common to them all --- which is the defining characteristic of a collective.

I have to disagree, with the bit after the "--". You are describing a collective-politics that is as extreme as American Libertarian Individualism, where the individual, or the collective, is not merely constructively-opposed but actively and successfully suppressed. This kind of extremism benefits no-one, and I will not and do not argue in its favour. A collective does work toward common goals, but only sometimes, as you describe. This is a defining characteristic of a real-world human collective.

And all societies actually comprise loads of social sub-groupings, all nested and interconnected; they are not independent groups. We're merely simplifying for the sake of clarity when we assume so. So, when we describe all these groups and sub-groups collectively, we can only do so in the most general terms. In these general terms, societies, tribes and families are all just examples of human social groups, and they share - again, in the most general terms - many characteristics.

That is true too. They are indeed all human social groups; they all fit the definition of "society." But societies have different forms, and those differences matter a great deal when formulating policies for governing them.

All societies are different; all tribes are different; all families are different. This is not disputed, but it misses my point entirely. Because, as well as the differences so close to your heart, there are also similarities too, and it is these toward which I direct your attention. Societies, tribes and families all work co-operatively together, in the approximate way you describe, but it still happens.

We must also remember that all social groupings of humans contain sub-groups, recursively, so that our 'lazy' discussion of societies is actually a discussion about multiply-nested groups and sub-groups. And there is an element whereby groupings often operate so that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. This is not ideally efficient, but it is a defining characteristic of human social groups. We must recognise this too, if we are to understand them properly.

As for policies to govern society, society is the beast that sets the policies, and 'governs' itself. The bigger groupings seek to 'govern' the smaller sub-groups too. The problem of governing is not so much about individual politics, it's mostly about the politics of social groupings. Society runs the government, not the other way around, I think.

[Ecurb]

The literature on CAS's is extensive, but here is a decent summary:

http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/ ... ystems.pdf

We can (for exampled) determine how long ago related languages diverged; we do this by studying language. The motives of blabbermouths who actually altered pronunciations are irrelevant.

Sure. It is fairly easy to produce plausible re-constructions of the past states of a CAS. But it is not possible to predict their future states.

. People may try to maximize their own happiness, but often they do not: they give their resources away (to their children, for example); they dive on hand grenades to save their buddies; they write poems to make glad the hearts of their fellow humans.

They do those things because it contributes to their own happiness (or is satisfying in some way).

Your attempts at social psychology ("everyone has an interest in satisfying his own interests, attaining his own goals") are trivial, true by definition.

Yes indeed. And obvious. But nonetheless ignored or denied by collectivists.

You are beginning to babble incoherently, G.E. People dive on hand grenades because if "contributes to their own happiness"? That's nonsensical. Of course people dive on hand grenades voluntarily; they want to dive on hand grenades. But when you claim that their desires MUST be self-serving, you are merely rambling. There is no way to falsify your theory, and it has thus become meaningless.

I don't think "collectivists" ignore individual differences or goals, although I'm not sure to whom you refer.

Certainly the "collective" is made up of individuals, each with different goals and motives. But the individual is also created by the collective. Language is a collective enterprise. It would be worthless without shared meaning; it developed organically from a collective. Yet without it we would hardly be human. Facility with language give us lodes of information; modes of thinking, and roads of communication. Indeed, our biological evolution appears intrinsically linked to our increasing use of language. The more important language became, the more advantageous it became for humans to have developed frontal lobes in their brains. Man makes himself; and the collective makes individuals what they are today.

Finally, in your original essay you write:

In tribal societies there is no free will, and no individuality.

Huh? How do you know? Did the Santa Fe Institute come up with this one? It's a ridiculous generalization, incorrect, and even silly.

[GE Morton]

That is all true enough, for the most part, but while most people work cooperatively with certain others at certain times and for certain purposes, they are not all working cooperatively toward some goal common to them all --- which is the defining characteristic of a collective.

I have to disagree, with the bit after the "--". You are describing a collective-politics that is as extreme as American Libertarian Individualism, where the individual, or the collective, is not merely constructively-opposed but actively and successfully suppressed. This kind of extremism benefits no-one, and I will not and do not argue in its favour.

Well, I'm puzzled here. The phrase you quoted after the "---" is not describing a "collective-politics" at all. It is merely stating the defining characteristic of a collective, as that term is commonly understood. And I have no idea what you see as "extreme" about it.

A collective does work toward common goals, but only sometimes, as you describe. This is a defining characteristic of a real-world human collective.

Well, in a sense. The members of a collective rarely work toward the common goal all the time --- they do have to eat, sleep, take care of the other affairs of their lives --- but we can say the collective endures through these pauses and interruptions. It endures until the common goal is attained. The group may then take on a new goal or dissolve.

All societies are different; all tribes are different; all families are different. This is not disputed, but it misses my point entirely. Because, as well as the differences so close to your heart, there are also similarities too, and it is these toward which I direct your attention. Societies, tribes and families all work co-operatively together, in the approximate way you describe, but it still happens.

Of course there are similarities; they are all social groupings, after all. But while all members of families and tribes sometimes work cooperatively toward some common goal, members of modern societies never do --- because there is no goal shared by all of them (if you disagree perhaps you can cite an example). It is for that reason that such societies do not qualify as collectives.

[GE Morton]

You are beginning to babble incoherently, G.E. People dive on hand grenades because if "contributes to their own happiness"? That's nonsensical. Of course people dive on hand grenades voluntarily; they want to dive on hand grenades. But when you claim that their desires MUST be self-serving, you are merely rambling. There is no way to falsify your theory, and it has thus become meaningless.

True; soldiers do not dive upon hand grenades in order to increase their happiness. "Happiness" is inapt term here, which is why I said, "or is satisfying in some other way." The premise there is "psychological egoism," not hedonism. People act as they do to satisfy some desire, achieve some goal of their own. Those goals and desires can extend well beyond one's personal welfare, to the welfare of others or advancement of a cause or obedience to a moral principle. Sometimes the latter can outrank the agent's personal welfare, even the value of his own life, in his value hierarchy. But they are nonetheless the interests, goals, values of that agent. Psychological egoism, so understood, is a truism.

I don't think "collectivists" ignore individual differences or goals, although I'm not sure to whom you refer.

Anyone who advocates any public policy which presumes some universal goal or interest which he claims overrides the demonstrable goals and interests of individuals, who may be forced (if necessary) to support it at a cost to their own goals and interests, ignores (or at least disregards) those latter.

Certainly the "collective" is made up of individuals, each with different goals and motives. But the individual is also created by the collective. Language is a collective enterprise.

No. It is a social enterprise. It is an excellent, indeed a paradigm, example of a CAS at work. Natural languages emerge from social interactions; no one designs them, no person or group delibertately, intentiontionally creates them. No cooperation among the members of the speech community is involved in creating them. And like all other CAS's the future evolution of a natural language is completely unpredictable.

You continue to identify all social phenomena with collective actions. But a collective is only one form of social organization.

Man makes himself; and the collective makes individuals what they are today.

Society does, in part. But modern societies are not collectives.

In tribal societies there is no free will, and no individuality.

Huh? How do you know? Did the Santa Fe Institute come up with this one? It's a ridiculous generalization, incorrect, and even silly.

It is hyperbole. There has to be some individuality, or there would have been no innovation. We'd all still be sleeping under the stars and eating what we could scavenge or catch, raw. And free will manifests itself in individuality.

[Jack D Ripper]

...

Societies exist because all of its members agree --- as evidenced by their remaining within it --- that living in a social setting is preferable to a hermetic, solitary existence; that it offers more opportunities for improving their own welfare and that of those close to them. ...

No. That people remain in some country or other is explained by the fact that there is nowhere else to go. Every bit of land is claimed by some country or other. Not to mention the fact that not everyone can afford to move about even if there were such a place for them to go.


Of course, most people don't really want to do such a thing, even if it were possible. Some of us have read Hobbes and understand his point about "THE NATURALL CONDITION OF MANKIND" being thus:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/32 ... nk2HCH0013

That is life on one's own without society. That Hobbesian alternative, though, acts as a coercive incentive to accept a government, even if one had the option of foregoing one. There is always coercion, even if there were choice, which, in this case, there isn't.


Most who would try to live on their own, if there were a place to go, would be taking bits of civilization with them (e.g., knives, clothes, etc.), so their separation from society would not really be complete, as their lives would likely be depending on those bits of civilization that they took with them. There would be hypocrisy in this if they pretended that they were "making it on their own." But then, all of the people who imagine themselves "self-made" are deluding themselves. No one raises themselves from birth, and any knowledge they thus gain is not anything won purely on their own efforts. Reading a book is getting advice from someone else, though they may well be dead.


But, getting back to the earlier point, one cannot simply pick the country in which one lives. Many countries have very strict policies on who they will let in and who they will not, and if you don't meet their criteria, you cannot legally live there. So it is mostly a matter of one being forced to accept where one was born, though there are many exceptions to that. But in all cases, there isn't the option to "opt out" and live somewhere without government control, because no such place exists.


Of course, governments generally try to indoctrinate the citizens such that they want to be there, that they are proud to call themselves members of that society, and so are more cooperative and willing to believe that it really is a matter of choice and is not something simply imposed upon them. If the indoctrination is successful, the people will believe that.

[Jack D Ripper]

... But a free trade policy will be good for everyone who does not seek to support themselves via some sort of plunder.
...

Nonsense. It is precisely those who do plunder who benefit most from free trade. If one country has a higher minimum wage, actual requirements for job safety, and environmental regulations, the manufacturer in that country is at a disadvantage when competing with a company in another country without those requirements, that pays poorly (or uses slave labor), does not spend anything on safety equipment, and does not have to curtail pollution. The company that is most oppressive and damaging to the environment is the one that wins in a free trade situation, because their costs are lower and consequently they can sell the same things for less.

So, the idea that free trade is good for everyone is moronic.

[Jack D Ripper]

... People aren't morons (except those who voted for Trump). They are well aware that promoting an ethos in which we all help each other promotes the realization of our own goals. The problem with the "economic-man" approach is two-fold: it misunderstands human nature and it (often) fails to account for the complex nuances of game theory.

Given that over 40% of those who cast a vote, voted for Trump, your "exception" is a very significant percentage of the population. Too high of a percentage to properly be called an "exception", as they are about as normal or ordinary as possible.

So, I object to your claim that (generally) people aren't morons. I think the evidence strongly points the other way.

[Jack D Ripper]

You are beginning to babble incoherently, G.E. People dive on hand grenades because if "contributes to their own happiness"? That's nonsensical. Of course people dive on hand grenades voluntarily; they want to dive on hand grenades. But when you claim that their desires MUST be self-serving, you are merely rambling. There is no way to falsify your theory, and it has thus become meaningless.

True; soldiers do not dive upon hand grenades in order to increase their happiness. "Happiness" is inapt term here, which is why I said, "or is satisfying in some other way." The premise there is "psychological egoism," not hedonism. People act as they do to satisfy some desire, achieve some goal of their own. Those goals and desires can extend well beyond one's personal welfare, to the welfare of others or advancement of a cause or obedience to a moral principle. Sometimes the latter can outrank the agent's personal welfare, even the value of his own life, in his value hierarchy. But they are nonetheless the interests, goals, values of that agent. Psychological egoism, so understood, is a truism.

You are misusing the expression "psychological egoism". It means:

[Psychological egoism claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/

Psychological egoism is the thesis that we are always deep down motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest. Psychological altruism, on the other hand, is the view that sometimes we can have ultimately altruistic motives.

https://iep.utm.edu/psychego/


It does not mean that people just have some motive for their actions.

The fact that people do sometimes throw themselves on hand grenades demonstrates that psychological egoism is false. [Of course, that does not stop idiots from claiming it is true anyway, but there is almost nothing so nonsensical that one cannot find some fool willing to affirm it (e.g., the Flat Earth Society, etc.).]

[Ecurb]

True; soldiers do not dive upon hand grenades in order to increase their happiness. "Happiness" is inapt term here, which is why I said, "or is satisfying in some other way." The premise there is "psychological egoism," not hedonism. People act as they do to satisfy some desire, achieve some goal of their own. Those goals and desires can extend well beyond one's personal welfare, to the welfare of others or advancement of a cause or obedience to a moral principle. Sometimes the latter can outrank the agent's personal welfare, even the value of his own life, in his value hierarchy. But they are nonetheless the interests, goals, values of that agent. Psychological egoism, so understood, is a truism.

.

"Psychological egoism", as you describe it, means nothing more than that people voluntarily do what they want to do. Of course the interest, goals and values of an "agent" (do you mean a person?) are the interests, goals and values of that person. So what? How does understanding this help us understand human behavior? It doesn't.

(A collectivist is) Anyone who advocates any public policy which presumes some universal goal or interest which he claims overrides the demonstrable goals and interests of individuals, who may be forced (if necessary) to support it at a cost to their own goals and interests, ignores (or at least disregards) those latter.

OK. IN that case we are all collectivists. Anyone who believes laws or taxes are reasonbable is a collectivist (by that definition). Those darned collectivists think that the goal of regulating the flow of traffic justifies laws against running red lights, speeding, and driving the wrong way down one way streets. Then they actually have the temerity to use force to enforce those laws.

I tried to read your CAS article, but it was too boring, so I quit. Language (I'll grant) arises organically rather than in a planned manner. Nonetheless it is a collective enterprise; the "collective" must agree on the meaning of words and the grammar of sentences in order for language to be useful. Mathematicians are collectivists who agree that a universal goal or interest demands that mathematical proofs conform to specific rules of logic, definitions of terms, and meaning of symbols. They go so far as to flunk students who disagree, at which point the non-conformists have to join the army and get blown up by land mines in Afghanistan.

[GE Morton]

...

Societies exist because all of its members agree --- as evidenced by their remaining within it --- that living in a social setting is preferable to a hermetic, solitary existence; that it offers more opportunities for improving their own welfare and that of those close to them. ...

No. That people remain in some country or other is explained by the fact that there is nowhere else to go. Every bit of land is claimed by some country or other. Not to mention the fact that not everyone can afford to move about even if there were such a place for them to go.

My comment did not discuss remaining in some country; it discussed remaining in a social setting, in ANY country, as opposed to living a solitary, hermetic existence. And possibilities for doing the latter exist in many countries.

Of course, most people don't really want to do such a thing, even if it were possible. Some of us have read Hobbes and understand his point about "THE NATURALL CONDITION OF MANKIND" being thus: . . .

Again, you mis-read the comment. Hobbes's bellum onmium contra omnes presumes a social setting. Persons living a hermetic, solitary existence would be non-combatants in Hobbes's "war."

The question at hand in that point in the thread was the advantages offered by living in a social setting; not the comparative advantages of different social settings.

That is life on one's own without society.

Er, no. That is life in a "state of nature," which Hobbes understood to mean an ungoverned society. He was right, of course, that to secure the advantages offered by a social setting some rules of interactions are necessary. The "state of nature" must be transformed into a civil society.

You're not equating society per se here with a civil society, are you? A society per se is any group of persons (or other animals) so situated as to be able to interact, and who do interact constructively at least occasionally. If there are no rules governing those interactions you have Hobbes's "state of nature." But it is still a society.

Most who would try to live on their own, if there were a place to go, would be taking bits of civilization with them (e.g., knives, clothes, etc.), so their separation from society would not really be complete, as their lives would likely be depending on those bits of civilization that they took with them. There would be hypocrisy in this if they pretended that they were "making it on their own."

Along with remaining in a social setting or withdrawing completely from it are many in-between options. It is simply a matter of comparing the relative advantages and disadvantages of each option, given the agent's interests and values. No pretense or hypocrisy is involved in any of the choices.

To repeat: the issue at hand was not which country in which to live. It was whether to remain in a social setting.

[GE Morton]

You are misusing the expression "psychological egoism". It means:

[Psychological egoism claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism

Methinks you overlooked the very first sentence in your own link, to wit: "All forms of egoism require explication of 'self-interest' (or 'welfare' or 'well-being'). There are three main theories. Preference or desire accounts identify self-interest with the satisfaction of one’s desires.[/quote]

Most of the objections to psychological egoism rest on assuming "self-interest" (or "welfare") is confined to self-regarding actions, and promptly cite examples of other-regarding actions people often perform. But there are no grounds for or need to so limit the scope of those terms. A self-interested action is ANY action that satisfies some desire, some interest, of the acting agent, no matter who else may benefit from it. As I said, psychological egoism is a truism.

[Jack D Ripper]

No. That people remain in some country or other is explained by the fact that there is nowhere else to go. Every bit of land is claimed by some country or other. Not to mention the fact that not everyone can afford to move about even if there were such a place for them to go.

My comment did not discuss remaining in some country; it discussed remaining in a social setting, in ANY country, as opposed to living a solitary, hermetic existence. And possibilities for doing the latter exist in many countries.

...

Almost no one can do that either.

If you believe that it is possible for people to live without ever interacting with others, please explain how that would be accomplished. I think you will find, when trying to work out the practical details of this, that it is impossible for the vast majority of people.

[GE Morton]

Clarification: in the post above I should have said "the first few sentences," instead of "the first sentence." And there should have been a closed quote after the third quoted sentence.

[Jack D Ripper]

You are misusing the expression "psychological egoism". It means:



https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism

Methinks you overlooked the very first sentence in your own link, to wit: "All forms of egoism require explication of 'self-interest' (or 'welfare' or 'well-being'). There are three main theories. Preference or desire accounts identify self-interest with the satisfaction of one’s desires.

That is funny, given that the next sentence after the last one you quote is:

Often, and most plausibly, these desires are restricted to self-regarding desires.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/

Most of the objections to psychological egoism rest on assuming "self-interest" (or "welfare") is confined to self-regarding actions, and promptly cite examples of other-regarding actions people often perform. But there are no grounds for or need to so limit the scope of those terms.

Of course there are grounds for such a limitation. There is no reason to call something "self-interest" if the interest has nothing to do with the self. It is a misuse of language to do what you are wanting to do. It would make no sense to call the position "psychological egoism" if it had nothing to do with egoism.

A self-interested action is ANY action that satisfies some desire, some interest, of the acting agent, no matter who else may benefit from it. As I said, psychological egoism is a truism.

You are writing nonsense. "Self-interest" has a meaning:

self-interest

NOUN

mass noun
One's personal interest or advantage, especially when pursued without regard for others.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/self-interest

Of course, if you actually read the articles to which I provided links, you would know that psychological egoism is not a truism, and is widely regarded as false. Indeed, if it were merely a truism as you pretend, those articles likely would not exist at all, as neither philosophy encyclopedia tends to contain articles that are about truisms. Whatever you pretend the phrase means does not alter these facts.