Talk:Individualism

This article stresses the independent, irresponsible and self-sufficient individual. Of course, that's what most people think of when they hear the term 'individualism.' But perhaps something more could be said about views seeing the individual welfare as the main goal, and collective action as the best means to get there. For example, one could argue the individual's self-realization is enabled by collective actions like the providing of education and health care. This is not the same as collectivism, as the individual remains the main focus.Djadek 11:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Individualism and Egoism

Somebody please add information about this: What is the difference between individualism and egoism?

Juhtolv

To me, the word "egoism" has connotations of Marxist jargon. I don't think I've ever seen it used in any other context.--Bcrowell 19:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You haven't? What about Ayn Rand? She has an entire book called 'The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism'. It was an integral part of her argument in favour of capitalism.

Lasseiz-faire capitalism

I'm removing the word 'radical' from the section regarding lasseiz-faire capitalism. It violates the NPOV.

Derived from Solipsism?

Removed: "It may derive from a belief in "solipsism"..."

This is without explanation and seems like a big stretch (at least from my knowledge of the two subjects). It seems to suggest that the Individualist outlook began because of, in short, a serious belief in the epistemological uncertainty of other people being real people. Even with the word "may", I don't believe it belongs in the article, nevermind the first paragraph.

I hope everyone else sees my point! (Theboywonder 14:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

Worship isn't the right word

I really don't like this: (except for other individualists, which are worshipped as "heroes") First the tone of this statement seems to be negative of individualism. Secondly, worship is a really strong word, revere might be better. Third, reverence and submission are not the same thing. --Sycomonkey 22:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reference

I've been thinking of removing The Virtue of Selfishness from the reference section. I don't feel it should be in an article about individualism when it promotes egoism instead. It would seem logical to only use references which directly relate to the subject and not to something else. But before I edit anything I'd like to hear some opinions on the matter. NotSuper 18:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone that might have a problem with this removal? If there are no complaints then I'm going to remove it. I'll wait a few more days just in case, though. NotSuper 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I just removed it. NotSuper 07:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is misguiding the reader by saying "Individualism is, however, to be distinguished from egoism." Sure, the words themselves means two different things, but individualists oppose altruism --the ethical doctrine that says a person is morally obligated to serve others. If someone opposes altruism he's an individualist. Also the sentence you added is wrong: "Many individuals seek to free every single person from collective control. However, there are also many individualists that have no such intentions." Of course and individualists opposes "collective control." Collective control is the antithesis of individual control. RJII 16:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Individualists certainly can be altruists if they choose to do so; not all of them are interested in just their own self-interest. The important thing is that it's their CHOICE to help others. Also, opposing altruism does not always make one an individualist. Would you classify a thief or killer as an individualist just because they don't believe in helping others? No, that would be horribly wrong. Furthermore, many individualists don't want to free everyone from collective control--some (but not all) of these people are the ones that promote cultural relativism. An individualist merely believes in the importance of the individual and personal reliability. An egoist wants to promote their own interest. It's a pretty clear distinction, in my view. NotSuper 06:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

An altruist is not someone who simply believes in helping others (if we're talking ethics). He's someone who believes people have a moral obligation to help others, even if it's not in one's self-interest, or in one's detriment, to do so. The guy who coined the word "altruism" was August Comte, in order to label his ethical doctrine. Let me give you a quote from him: "[the] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely." There you have it, plainly stated opposition to "individualism." And, if someone wants people to be under "collective control" they are definitely not individualists. Individualism is all about individual control. Collective control could sacrifice the individual if doing so serves the "greater good" of the collective. RJII 15:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many different interpretations of altruism. You can see that on the article for altruism on Wikipedia. As for the collective control issue, not all individualists care about that as long as THEY aren't under the control. These would be the selfish individualists--though not all selfish individualists feel this way, of course. They would not want people under collective control but would instead be indifferent to them. Like I've said, there are individualists (such as Robert Heinlein) that believed in cultural relativism. In addition, some ofthe heroes of the Romantic age are individualists yet sacrifice themselves to help others or the "greater good."

One definition of altruism is as follows: "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness." It doesn't always have to be an obligation. In many ways the philosophy has changed over the years.

That's the colloquial definition of altruism. If you're talking ethics and political philosophy then "altruism" always refers to a moral obligation to help or serve others. RJII 20:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As I've said, there are different interpretations of altruism. If you'd like to mention these in the article I'd have no problem with that. I'm referring to altruism as helping others without benefit to oneself. NotSuper 20:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In any case, this section is for discussion of reference material for the article. This particular topic of interest requires its own category on the talk page.

Also, on the history page I notice that you claimed I was trying to say collectivism was compatible with individualism. This was never what I was saying at all. What I'm saying is that an individualist, one that cares only for himself, MAY not care what goes on in another society (one with collective control). NotSuper 19:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"An individualist may be a conscientious "altruist": he is by no means hostile to, or aloof from society" ..what is that supposed to mean? Not being an altruist doesn't mean you're hostile or aloof from society --this is a false contrast from egoism. RJII 20:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Since I didn't write any of those passages (or modify them) I can't say for sure what the user who put them there was saying. I could give some theories on why they put that in there, but I'm not going to right now. But again, this section is for reference books. We should start a new section on the talk page for discussion on the subject.

In fact, I'll start a section now. NotSuper 23:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Altruism and Individualism

There has been some debate on whether individualism and altruism can go together or not. What does everyone think? Perhaps we can reach a comfortable consensus here. NotSuper 23:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You could say something along the lines of "although individualism is incompatible with the classical definition of altruism (helping others out of moral obligation), it is not incompatible with choosing to help others."

An individual can choose to be altruistic of his or her own accord.

Individuality redirects to individualism

Sometimes a distinction is made between individuality and individualism as doctrines. Can someone comment on this? Is it worth discussing in the article or making a disambiguation? Eric 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I can not conceive that Idividualism and Altruism can exist in a symbiosis existance. One means Self and the other refers to the helping of others and putting others before self. As such,both terms contradict the other.

[(User:Modify|True_Wayfinder)] 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Intangible, I invite you to explain yourself

You reverted several of my edits without explanation, even though they are the exact same kinds of edits that you support in the collectivism article. For your convenience, here's a list:

1. My edits to the intro. The previous introduction was horribly POV, talking about such things as the "virtue of self-reliance", and it was entirely unreferenced. I thought you advocated the removal of unreferenced intro text, as you did with the text I added to the collectivism intro.
2. You reverted out of hand several edits I made for NPOV. Your version features the words "encroachment by the state", "transgressions by the majority" and "repugnant", where mine has "obligations imposed by social institutions", "wishes of the majority" and "irrelevant".
3. You restored an unreferenced paragraph I had removed. Granted, most of the article is unreferenced at this point, but most of the article is not the subject of dispute. If someone disputes an unreferenced paragraph, that paragraph has to go (or at least get an "unreferenced" tag).
4. Worst of all, you removed a perfectly legitimate criticism of individualism that was referenced as coming from Alexis de Tocqueville.

-- Nikodemos 00:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I left de Tocqueville in. He was not the first though to use the term "individualism" in the English language though, which I corrected. Intangible 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice you moved him up. I apologize. Right now I'm trying to apply my favourite method of dispute resolution: Make the uncontroversial edits first so that the dispute gets narrowed down as much as possible. -- Nikodemos 00:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

From the 1932 Dictionnaire de l'Académie française: individualism is "subordination of the general interest to the interest of the individual." I wonder what it says now... Intangible 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we can add that definition to the intro... but why did you revert my grammar and spelling changes? -- Nikodemos 01:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

quote

From Swart: "Their major target was not so much the political doctrine of natural, inalienable rights of man as the economic doctrine of laissez faire...they did not criticize the XVIIIth-century philosophy for its equalitarian tenets (as was done by the conservative anti-individualists) but for not having coped with the increasing inequality between rich and poor." There are of course different types of egalitarianism... Intangible 01:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, here's the important part: "as was done by the conservative anti-individualists". That makes more sense. Thank you! I didn't realize what the part about egalitarianism was doing there - now I see that the source was trying to contrast the Saint-Simonians with the conservatives. -- Nikodemos 01:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin of term; "autonomy"

I've read in Alain Renaut's Era of the Individual that the historian Marcel Gauchet located the first use of the term in an anonymous letter to a Saint-Simonean newspaper.

Speaking of Renaut's book, he draws a very interesting distinction between individualism and autonomy, and what he sees as the modern conflation of the two ideas. I don't know where to put in a note about this, though.--WadeMcR 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Political versus Methodological

"For some political individualists, who hold a view known as methodological individualism, the word "society" can never refer to anything more than a very large collection of individuals."

There is something wrong here. It seems to me that all pol indivs would be method indivs. But method indiv is an approach to social analysis which doesn't imply pol indiv. You can use method indiv to deduce collective social structures.

- Pepper 150.203.227.130 08:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cooperation for more individual freedom

The article is very faulty, concentrating only on selfishness and egoism. I can explain this best by telling you about left-liberalism and right-liberalism in Europe.

Left-liberals are the poor workers who struggled together to further the freedom of the poor, against the domination of the rich, or the church, or the kings and tsars.

When a rich man owns a whole town, which happened often in the wild west, or in the towns in Europe, he is dominating the life of all the citizens in town.

The citizens have to work for the rich man in his mines and factories, shops and saloons, to get money, pieces of paper, from the rich man, so they could exchange these pieces of paper against food, clothes, living quarters, alcohol, which the rich man owned and distributed.

The left liberals were very close to the labor unions and the socialists, as they struggled for more personal freedom and more independence from the rich, the church or the king.

The rich developed their own version of liberalism, the right to use their property, their money, their power, as they liked. This reactionary movement is called right-liberalism. They wanted the right to be selfish and to be egoists.

As it stands now the article is only referring to this kind of reactionary liberalism, the right of the rich and powerful to keep their power over the poor.

The article should also explain how people can cooperate to achieve more freedom. Both more freedom as individuals and as a group.

This leads us to the distinction between authoritarian socialism (communism), and anti-authoritarian socialism. Authoritarian socialism struggles for the welfare of the poor, but is not aware of the need for individual freedom. Or cannot afford individual freedom.

The first communists in the Russian revolution were very interested in individual freedom, but the attacks from foreign powers forced their leaders into an authoritarian form of communism. On a ship in a storm and under attack from pirates there is not much place for individualism. Everybody has to obey the orders of the captain to maximise the chances of survival.

Anti-authoritarian socialism struggles to achieve more individual freedom for all, and especially, of course, for those who have very little individual freedom, the poor workers. Left-anarchists criticised the authoritarian communism, for this lack of individual freedom.

Reactionary right-anarchists struggled for the freedom of the capitalists to use their money in any way they wanted, and they make a lot of propaganda for anarcho-capitalism, the rights for the rich to have freedom from taxes, political interference from democracy, (politics), and freedom to continue to use and abuse the poor.

A lot of people in USA, even poor people, repeat like parrots what they have been taught, that taxes is theft, that corporations should have freedom like people, that politics is evil, and that businessmen and the rich should make all the important decisions, not politicians.

They forget that they, the people, have power over politicians, if they use this power wisely, but no power over the rich. Decisions taken publicly by elected representatives of the people is better than decisions taken secretly by greedy people who only struggle to maximise their profit.

We can use the power of political and social cooperation to achieve better material circumstances and more individual freedom for the poor.

Personally I grew up in Sweden in the 50ies and 60ies, and enjoyed a lot of personal freedom, which generations of socialists had created during the beginning of the 20th century, building up the welfare systems, free schools, study loans for higher education, extra subventions for the poor, public libraries, unemployment insurance, free public health care, etc..

I was, for example, shocked when I saw a beach in Austria with a high hence around it, and you had to pay to get into that beach. I had never seen anything like that and I was used to the freedom to walk anywhere in the forest or on the beaches. We have the right for anybody to put up a tent and camp anywhere, except close to a house. In many other countries people do not have such rights and freedoms. In my youth I could hitchhike around in Europe and Asia and in most countries we had a lot of individual freedom and the right to free health care and schools, public libraries, the workers unions very cheap festival areas in every town, the people's park, and the people's house where we could dance every saturday night.

The people's house ("Folkets hus" in swedish), is also used for concerts, speeches, documentary movies, etc.. and is usually owned by the worker's unions. (Roger J.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.249.185.210 (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

After writing the text above I found that wikipedia, in english, actually has an article about Folkets hus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkets_hus

and from that article you can follow links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkpark and further on to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allemansrätten describes the freedom to roam freely and camp wherever you like.

I mention these specifically swedish institutions because they give a good idea of how cooperation between the workers created a lot of individual freedom, and Sweden has been a pioneer in these areas compared to most countries in the world. This text I have written may be seen as mainly political, but I think editors of the article on Individualism can learn some important general ideas on individualism and individual freedom from it.

An external link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allemansrätten leads us to http://www.la-articles.org.uk/LA-1.pdf That text says "Ramblers should not expect their leisure activity to be free." And that captures the essence of the issue, the rich people, the land owners, want to be able to make a profit on everything. If leisure activity is free it gives too much individual freedom to the poor and makes it impossible to make a profit from their leisure activity.

If the rich people could charge us for breathing the air they surely would, just like they recently managed to charge for rain water in some African countries. The freedom of the capital tries to reduce the individual freedom of the people, so they can sell individual freedom and make a profit from it, which limits the individual freedom and makes it available only to those who can afford individual freedom. It is a neverending struggle between the ruling elite (the rich) and the people which is at the root of this issue of individual freedom and individualism. (Roger J.)

Left and Right liberalism? I think you must be confusing liberalism with social democrats and Marxists.

Your theory of "class warfare" (your constant references to poor vs rich) is a Marxist concept and is entirely opposite to individualism which belives that only individuals exist and that groups are grammatical fictions.

Individualism places great value on self-reliance, on privacy, and on mutual respect. Negatively, it embraces opposition to authority and to all manner of controls over the individual, especially when exercised by the state. As a theory of human nature, individualism holds that the interests of the normal adult are best served by allowing him maximum freedom and responsibility for choosing his objectives and the means for obtaining them. The institutional embodiment of individualism follows from these principles. All individualists believe that government should keep its interference in the lives of individuals at a minimum, confining itself largely to maintaining law and order, preventing individuals from interfering with others, and enforcing agreements (contracts) voluntarily arrived at. Individualism also implies a property system according to which each person or family enjoys the maximum of opportunity to acquire property and to manage and dispose of it as he or they see fit.

Individualism is a doctrine holding that the interests of the individual should take precedence over the interests of the state or social group.

Sweden has capitalist economy just like the rest of Europe (only Western Europe during the cold war) and Asia, although with state intervention, which makes it a mixed economy not a socialism. Sweden also has a lower population density than Austria so there is a greater chance to find a private beach (especially around a lake) and considering that Austria is landlocked country with fewer beaches anyway.

You can cooperate all you want in capitalist system, but you are not beign guaranteed no success and have to accept competition from others.

Stratofortress 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Individualism is for the egotistical

Individualism feeds egoism. Individualism is also what is destroying the world. When individuals consider themselves above others, we see competition. War is a competition between two or more world powers. Neither one taking into consideration the pain and suffering they cause everyone else. In all competition someone must lose, and no one wants to lose because of their ego.

Individualism is evil, and goes against the idea that all people are created equal.

Individualism should not be seen as a desireable virtue. Real desireable virtues should be those that improve humanity and overall life on earth.

How can individualism be better than communalism?(not to be confused with communism) Individualism does not contribute to a whole. It seperates people. In a buisiness that is successfull there has to be a cooperation between the individuals to accomplish a desired outcome. This cannot be done with individualistic ideas. In a buisiness full of individualists there is arguing, fighting, and at the most extreme "going postal". We see how this affects people every day. I live in this buisiness life, and the company I do contract work for has been bought and sold over six times in ten years.

The problem is that most people are individualists, seeking to make their lives more comfortable regardless of the cost. How, then, does that coincide with something such as world peace. We can only acheive something like world peace when everyone is happy, and individualists are not concerned with anyone else.

Put two hungry individualists in a room with only one hamburger and I gaurantee that someone will get hurt.

That view only makes sense when you're talking about some kind of pack animal, like a lion, which doesn't have the power of reason. Not human beings, who do.

As far as your horror scenario goes, what you describe isn't individualism. It's what I call "social contrarianism", which is completely different. People whose minds are still developing (i.e. children) usually act this way because they can't rationally see the benefits of doing otherwise. But a fully functioning adult in society should know the difference. Someone who cooperates (like in a business setting), because he understands the personal gain he can get from doing so, is being individualistic. Someone who cooperates because he thinks that groupwork is a virtue in and of itself is not individualistic.

You should also realize that all great modern innovations that have improved the world (planes, trains, cars, radios, televisions, computers, nanotech, medicines etc.) were invented by people who put themselves first. These things wouldn't exist if they gave those personal visions up and went into community service. In any case the benefits everyone can get from the work of some government think-tank will never outdo the benefits we already get from the products of individuals.

No war (at least in modern history) was started with individualistic goals in mind. The great Empires of history spread because of their leaders' interest in their collective glory. Hitler invaded Europe for the glory of the race. The Soviets reached out to other countries to perpetuate their ideology. War is never something individualists would ask for unless not going to war would seriously threaten their freedom (like in World War II).

"World Happiness": Those suffering impoverished places of the world aren't "happy" because they live in political climates that prevent them from pursuing their own goals. Africa shares the plate with socialists, racialists, kings, chiefs, military dictators and tribe-warfare. They would be better off if they stepped up and got rid of those regimes and replaced them with governments that protect their freedom, and if Western governments and private individuals stopped keeping them happily in power by subsidizing those countries. You can't blame individualists for "not giving enough", and you can't force them to give up their personal goals either. You won't produce world peace and happiness by enslaving the free world.

The perpetuation of a society that is based entirely on co-operation necessitates complete disregard for the rights and freedoms of the individual. The borg are a perfect example of this. For other good examples, take a nice long look at the horrific injustices perpatrated by socialist and communist regimes. In order to pursue efficient collectivism, the Chinese government ruthlessly persecuted the Tibetan people for almost 50 years. The most horrific of all crimes against humanity were comitted under the guise of National Socialism (Nazism), the goal of which was a unified and co-operative Germany free from Jewish influence (and other non pureblood arians).

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. (A.R.)

Put two idealistic collectivists in a room and I guarantee that they will commit a mass genocide.

Stratofortress 18:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Liberalism/Libertarianism?

Why is the idea of individualism considered a liberal idea? In Modern times Liberals support just as many restrictions as conservatives. While conservatives like stuff like the Patriot Act, Real ID, and the drug war, liberals support things like gun control, the REAL ID (also), and censorship. In fact some liberals are more socially restrictive than conservatives. Look at Obama, from what I understand he supports the Patriot Act and the REAL ID. Not to mention Hillary-ish censorship and gun control. Now I'm not saying Individualism should be classified as a Conservative philosophy specifically because of the neocons' ideology. But if one of the 2 (Liberalism and Conservativism) should be listed it should be conservativism seeing as Individualism does not exist in either modern major party so the definition should be looked at from a historical perspective. Based on that lets go back to Calvin Coolidge, a Republican president and by far the closest we've ever had to a Paleo-Conservative president based on his actions. Coolidge supported both social and economic liberty and INDIVIDUALISM. How about the Confederate States of America... while the CSA's legislation didn't reflect the PaleoCon philosophy to a great extent during the war (hey... it WAS a home-fought war...), it was founded on that philosophy. I Think that Conservativism deserves just as much right to but listed as individualism as Liberalism, seeing as Neither are Individualist ideologies... ~~TheHoustonKid, (L-TX)~~

opposing views

There are several examples of opposing viewpoints already given throughout the article, and surely the article doesn't need a section devoted to it. I vote that the section be eliminated as superfluous. Hmoul 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

concurred, took it out.--M a s 09:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)