The importance of Individuality.

[Xanafax]

I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. - Ayn rand's The Fountainhead

Each person is born separate, individual. Arguably we possess only the genetically instilled behaviours designed to keep us alive whilst our brains develop.

We grow and we realise that we are forced to live in a world where conformity to the herd is ideal. It is the accepted norm and understood as the easiest way to get to death. We conform in dress, in food, in education, and in occupation. We are restricted by laws designed to protect the collective and alienate the individuals.

As free thinking individuals we are soon reduced to little more than buckets, sloshing about with reworked ideas, dangerous opinions, and force fed emotions.

I know that there are people out there who reject this. There are people who cannot stand to conform to this. I am not talking about the teenagers who all dress the same but still believe the are unique, or the angst ridden protester, protesting simply because "the establishment" doesn't like it. This is not individuality. It is conformity again.

Non-conformity is not about being violent, hating the world, or being unique. These are strictly collectivist terms. In truth an individualist will look at these people and laugh, because the individualist knows they will never understand the truth.

So who is an individual then? This quote should help me explain:

“The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men." - Ayn rand

The true advocate of individualism will not care what his peers are doing, and he will not care what other people think of him. His goal is not to be better than others, but simply to be better than himself. He will always seek self-transcendence. His is the archetypal figure Nietzsche refers to as "Die Ubermensch" or The Superman.

Thus charity looses it's meaning to the individualist. As does the idea of political correctness, multicultural, and importantly: Equality.

Yes, like it are not all men are not equal. People will always judge people on their value, what they can provide. It is madness to hold a man who can create massive value, as the intellectual, moral or otherwise equal to a man who must steal to meet his needs.

The individual doesn't seek to make others better, or to help others in anyway, the kindest thing a man can do for his brothers is to give his brothers the freedom to grow at their own pace, and at their own level. As the saying goes, water seeks it's own level.

Collectivism is a dangerous belief. It causes corruption, decay and stagnation. Individualism is the only way forward. Imagine a world where each person is inspired - not by money, fame, or recognition, but by the accomplishment of doing something that defines them as a person. Creating something so wonderful to them, that it sums up their whole life, they can glance at what they created, or only think about it, and they can feel their spirit sing.

That is the world I want to see. Not one where people feel the need to steal, to take drugs or to drink themselves into oblivion on a daily basis.

Nor a world where people have to be greedy and need to be above others to satisfy their insecurities. The true egotist does not need to destroy anyone to get where they want to be. The don't borrow the paths of others, or try and overtake another, they build their path with their own two hands, step by step.

Are you ready for a world that demands personal responsibility? Some people aren't, many in fact, aren't. These are the religious types, who require the approval of an imagined being greater than themselves, surely this seems ridiculous to you now. They are also the types who must define themselves by how many people they have beaten, how sad, how pathetic that this is what we have been reduced to. Petty competition and violence and outrage at the smallest things.

[sk8joyful]

is there room for comment in this thread?

[Xanafax]

Of course, all comments welcome!

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

Of course, all comments welcome!

I asked that, as your OP read like another lecture.

re "Individuality-importance":
what specifically, in each unique person,
do you want to champion... and
I wonder how well... *you* are also doing?

[torilink]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

Each person is born separate, individual. Arguably we possess only the genetically instilled behaviours designed to keep us alive whilst our brains develop.

We grow and we realise that we are forced to live in a world where conformity to the herd is ideal. It is the accepted norm and understood as the easiest way to get to death. We conform in dress, in food, in education, and in occupation. We are restricted by laws designed to protect the collective and alienate the individuals.

As free thinking individuals we are soon reduced to little more than buckets, sloshing about with reworked ideas, dangerous opinions, and force fed emotions.

I know that there are people out there who reject this. There are people who cannot stand to conform to this. I am not talking about the teenagers who all dress the same but still believe the are unique, or the angst ridden protester, protesting simply because "the establishment" doesn't like it. This is not individuality. It is conformity again.

Non-conformity is not about being violent, hating the world, or being unique. These are strictly collectivist terms. In truth an individualist will look at these people and laugh, because the individualist knows they will never understand the truth.

So who is an individual then? This quote should help me explain:



The true advocate of individualism will not care what his peers are doing, and he will not care what other people think of him. His goal is not to be better than others, but simply to be better than himself. He will always seek self-transcendence. His is the archetypal figure Nietzsche refers to as "Die Ubermensch" or The Superman.

Thus charity looses it's meaning to the individualist. As does the idea of political correctness, multicultural, and importantly: Equality.

Yes, like it are not all men are not equal. People will always judge people on their value, what they can provide. It is madness to hold a man who can create massive value, as the intellectual, moral or otherwise equal to a man who must steal to meet his needs.

The individual doesn't seek to make others better, or to help others in anyway, the kindest thing a man can do for his brothers is to give his brothers the freedom to grow at their own pace, and at their own level. As the saying goes, water seeks it's own level.

Collectivism is a dangerous belief. It causes corruption, decay and stagnation. Individualism is the only way forward. Imagine a world where each person is inspired - not by money, fame, or recognition, but by the accomplishment of doing something that defines them as a person. Creating something so wonderful to them, that it sums up their whole life, they can glance at what they created, or only think about it, and they can feel their spirit sing.

That is the world I want to see. Not one where people feel the need to steal, to take drugs or to drink themselves into oblivion on a daily basis.

Nor a world where people have to be greedy and need to be above others to satisfy their insecurities. The true egotist does not need to destroy anyone to get where they want to be. The don't borrow the paths of others, or try and overtake another, they build their path with their own two hands, step by step.

Are you ready for a world that demands personal responsibility? Some people aren't, many in fact, aren't. These are the religious types, who require the approval of an imagined being greater than themselves, surely this seems ridiculous to you now. They are also the types who must define themselves by how many people they have beaten, how sad, how pathetic that this is what we have been reduced to. Petty competition and violence and outrage at the smallest things.

some would argue this "Identity" you place so much belief in, is itself simply an "imagined being".

[Gregorz]

I thought this was a great and insightful post. I'd be inclined to agree.

[Xanafax]

Sk8joyful:

I am trying to champion that sense of power and individuality. Personally I am trying to foster this attitude in all my actions. It's going well.

torilink:

The identity is the whole point of the philosophy. The imagined being idea is the thing I don't want people to get into.

[torilink]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

Sk8joyful:

I am trying to champion that sense of power and individuality. Personally I am trying to foster this attitude in all my actions. It's going well.

torilink:

The identity is the whole point of the philosophy. The imagined being idea is the thing I don't want people to get into.

no, i'm saying that your identity/personality is also a product of your imagination. you created it for yourself. what/who you truly are is what lies beneath the imagining.

[magi13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_(philosophy)

hehe, Self, ^^

The link below is a book that tells you that man needs sex/violence to be normal. ^^

I say

But it seems to be true
Amazon.com: On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society: Dave Grossman: Books

[Xanafax]

torilink your statement is cyclic:

The true self imagines the identity, which imagines the true self. That's a dumb path to follow in my opinion.

Sex I agree with

But I have never been one for serious violence, like any warm blooded bloke I have hit the table a few times, or cursed unexpectedly. Howver I believe I was raised to resist violent urges, I went to one of those darned church schools they may have got me to be a non-violent person, but sex ed was pretty rubbish haha!

[torilink]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

torilink your statement is cyclic:

The true self imagines the identity, which imagines the true self. That's a dumb path to follow in my opinion.

wheeew, sure glad my reality isn't dependent upon what you believe is dumb and what you believe is smart! jk

no the true self doesn't imagine the identity..... you build your identity with your beliefs. In the OP basically the entire thing is about how important your belief that you are unique, exceptional, and different is to you, it is such a part of the identity you've built for yourself that the idea of being part of the herd actually makes you crazy.

your posts goes on and on about individuality... but really you are going on and on about what you believe about your identity and why you feel that way. This is classic ego thought process, you associate your sense of self with the thoughts you think, the things you do, and where you fit into the outer world (or don't fit). Comparing yourself to "Others" one being better than the other, or different, or smarter, or more informed, or more unique, or more of an individual.

If tomorrow you had a terrible blow to the head and lost all the accumulated data your brain stores..... it's entirely possible you wouldn't even remember writing this post or having these thoughts, or feeling these things were important at all...

You might even become the very type of person you seem to dispise - yet you'd be you.

ideas, thoughts, attitudes, judgments of self & others, all rise from beliefs. But they are not you unless you decide that is who you are.

[The Cloud]

If I had a hero, I'd have to say his name was Howard Roark, from "The Fountainhead." The inspiring thing about him is that he doesn't make any effort to be anything. He has zero regard for others, and just as little for himself. Because of this, he is absolutely free to allow himself to be whatever he is without contradiction or effort. He doesn't care whether he succeeds or not, he doesn't care whether he's loved or not, he doesn't care about his Ego at all. Thus, his Ego is free to express itself in all the wonderful ways that it would in all of us if we would only stop interfering.

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by torilink

your identity/personality is also a product of your imagination. you created it for yourself.
what/who you truly are, is what lies beneath the imagining.
ideas, thoughts, attitudes, judgments of self & others, all rise from beliefs.
But they are not you unless you decide that is who you are.

Yes, & yes

[NexusOfCompletion]

It's an illusion that you are an "individual". You are many pieces, assumed as a whole. An individual is an artificial boundary. There is no defining line between you and the universe.

[Foresta Gump]

Xanafax

Thank you for sharing such an insightful post, I relate well with these words, "His goal is not to be better than others but simply to be better than himself"

You mention something about alienate the individuals, it's the individuals who alienate the mediocre-minded. It's the individuals who should be running this world, along with the peace-keepers and high I.Qers.

I believe our world should be run on an I.Q basis, the highest I.Qers will have the most responsible positions with the higest paying jobs.

I look into my crystal ball I clearly see some posts trigger my thinking more than others.

Foresta Gump
P.S Individualism is totally non-conformist, separate from the norm, distinguished.

[Michael Chui]

Nice post. Before I criticize, I want to say that you've done a fairly good job of presenting and advocating individualism, and I do agree with much of the spirit of what you said. But as I said, I criticize.

First: the false dichotomy between "individualism" and "collectivism". Ignoring the SR bits posted so far, NexusOfCompletion clinches the essential problem with this spectrum. There's no such thing as an individual, if you bore in deeply enough. You say we are born separate, individual: I point out that we all have a set of genes inherited from an ancestry of commonality, with differences so minute that we recognize each other as a single species, inside the biological taxonomy all the way up.

Having said that, I think we can agree that the notion of the individual is powerful, useful, and ultimately a practical abstraction. But an exercise: if you cut off parts of yourself successively, or if you changed this feature or that feature, at what point are you no longer yourself? Gender? Emotions? Facial features? Memories? Stimuli responses? Genetic composition? The individual is not so indivisible.

Second: You assert, through Rand, that the individual is the only creator. And yet, this isn't true, as demonstrated in both human society and nature at large. The collective is capable of powerful and wide-ranging creation, assignable to no one author. The study of such systems term them "emergent", a whole that appears that is not assembled of its parts.

A collective composed of individualists can be more effective and powerful and creative than a collective composed of collectivists, but that does not deny their collection. As you say: not all men are created equal, and an individual knows this better than most. They would not give out standardized tests to assess minimum competence, but would prefer to see the special--dare I say, the unique--puissance of another individual who matches her own ability. It is a complement, a difference, a subtle blend that founds the basis of synergy.

(Aside: A creator does not conquer nature; she conquers the past by determining the future. That's what creativity is, as Rand suggests: self-determination. And what a great Self it is.)

Third: I sharply disagree that the individual does not care what others think of him, or that he does not care what others do. The individual is not an Island, whole unto himself. Every person is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. For every human being departed, we are less in some degree, deprived of the unique perspective they offer to our totality. (Counterpoint: Omnia mutantur, sed nihil interit: Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost.)

The individual is not a hermit, irrelevant to the mainstream of human affairs, but one who is eventually capable of actual leadership, taking the helm of the course of her people and steering them to the future created by her determination. Leadership does, in its wisdom, allow water to seek its own level. But leadership also knows that water, left undisturbed, will fester and stagnate: water must flow, and it must mix together a constant churn, and so it is healthy to all.

On equality, I have an essay linked in my signature.

Fourth: I disagree that keeping your hands off is the best way to help your fellow man. As Rand says, a creator's mark is the conquest of nature, and human nature is just as natural as any other: it can be held and shaped as much as a piece of wood or a slug of iron.

We are not, again, single beings divorced from our fellows: as others are unequal, so may some be less wise than the rest. Their actions affect the rest of us as much as they do themselves, and without guidance, can carry us to an unwanted death before we deign it. But more importantly, guidance can increase their individuality and their creativity, bringing them to a level where they are useful to the whole.

The clincher, as you may have noticed, is the question of how guidance is done. In this case, I will simply say that water does indeed seek its own level, and the task you may set yourself to, should you wish, is to define the hollow, the ditch, the valley, the canyon, the great oceanic basin in which they may find that level. That is a part of the personal responsibility of the individual. To require them to travel upstream to a higher place they cannot reach is, of course, the problem of collectivism: the false aspiration for equality to a standard poorly conceived.

But then again, that's what your post is about, isn't it?

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by Foresta Gump

I believe our world should be run on an I.Q basis, the highest I.Qers will have the most responsible positions with the higest paying jobs.

LOL. No thank you.

[torilink]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

LOL. No thank you.

ditto, lord knows a high IQ does not mean a person has a dash of common sense!

[Foresta Gump]

Impressive post Michael, I cannot argue against common sense, however, I half disagree that we are not individual, but I will make an attempt to resolve my thinking on this.

Not even twins are the same. We are humanity with different eyes, brains, bodies, thoughts, yet we are derived from one consciousness.

Our thoughts alone differentiate us from others, you've heard the term coined "two heads are better than one" that's because variety is the spice of life!

In a sense I understand it's impossible to be individual because we are all human--all different links on the same chain. To say we are individual is to say we are alien to each other. An alien is individual--set apart from human.

So essentially, I guess I lean more towards that we are not individual, only different in thought and body, but the spirit is one

Anyway, the intelligence here is something to be appreciated, we can learn from one another, we can figure out the answer through the reading of each others posts and applying serious thought.

I have to give credit to Steve Pavlina for thinking up Personal Development for Smart People, that's not to say that everyone who comes here is smart, but they think they are, which is just as good, because they have an opinion and that is smart in itself. It's the ideas which count, some are good, some are not, but the important thing here is to express it, because someone can relate.

Foresta Gump

[magi13]

^^, without individuality there will be no room for improvement or evolution in a positive sense.

Creativity comes from individuality.


A= man
B= individuality (infinite)
C= factors (infinity) or circumstance including place/time/person

A= B/C+(A raised to C)

it's a simple equation of how the world works. individuality is an important factor.

[Foresta Gump]

There is opinion, theory, educated guess, or fact!

And the opinion that is indisputable is that which is acceptable.


Foresta Gump

[Foresta Gump]

"Without individuality there will be no room for improvement or evolution in a positve sense"

We are all individual in thought, as so with the perception of thought!

But, we are not individual from consciousness, we are oneness, at different levels of awareness. We differ in smarts, intelligences, wisdoms, bodies, influences, spirits, but our thoughts differ, they are individual.

Original thoughts are those not circulated, originality at it's finest. The creator of thought is yourself, and when yourself looks outside the box, yourself will create original thought!

Which brings me to ask myself if I believe original thought is individualism, and I would have to settle with the answer yes, unless a more reasonable logical answer comes my way.

Foresta Gump

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Foresta Gump

I cannot argue against common sense

Oh, come on. That's what Xanafax's original post was all about! You can do better than that.

Originally Posted by Foresta Gump

Foresta Gump's post

I made a bit of a mistake, by doing the same thing Xanafax did when he made his point about individualism versus collectivism.

The non-existance of the individual isn't an issue with collectivism at all: it's difficulty of the word "individual" itself. Here's the etymology of the term:

Originally Posted by http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=individual

"a single object or thing," 1605, from M.L. individualis, from L. individuus "indivisible," from in- "not" + dividuus "divisible," from dividere "divide." Colloquial sense of "person" is attested from 1742. As an adj., used from c.1425 meaning "one and indivisible" (with ref. to the Trinity). Sense of "single, separate" is 1613; meaning "intended for one person" is from 1889. Individualism "self-centered feeling" is from 1827; as a social philosophy (opposed to communism and socialism) first attested 1851 in writings of J.S. Mill. Individuality "the aggregate of one's idiosyncrasies" is from 1614.

The remarkability of the fact that it only took 9 years for the term to contradict itself is blemished by that very fact. To spell it out, the word "individual" refers to an atomic, indivisible being. And yet, we are most certainly divisible, a sum of parts that are by themselves probably unconscious: and that very sum of divided parts is what we call the "individual".

But here in this thread, we are largely talking about the individual as a separate, isolated being: a diametric opposite to the idea of the herd mind, or even the hive mind. But "individual" is the wrong word: a closer one is "independent". But even this is inaccurate, because while independence signals a separation correctly, it's also wrong to think that we are not dependent on our fellows, because we are and should be.

Ultimately, the concept you're really looking to explore is "maturity".

(By the way, the continuum of clone-mind, herd-mind, hive-mind, pack-mind, and solitary-mind may be an interesting study: far more interesting than compacting it into a binary thing, at least.)

[Foresta Gump]

Thank you Michael, I stand to be corrected.

How about the use of the word "distinguished' set apart from the norm, in place of "individual"

Oh, and thanks much for sharing your artistic side, I shall read what you speak, and from that derive some meaningful insight.

Foresta Gump

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Foresta Gump

How about the use of the word "distinguished' set apart from the norm, in place of "individual"

Etymologically, "distinguished" is a fine word. Modernly (etymonline says that's 300 years), though, distinguished begs the question of "distinguished according to who?" or "distinguished from what?"

When Xanafax talks about not caring what others think, I intentionally took it more literally than he meant it. But the essence of what he wants to say is true, if the popular phrasing is kinda crude: you need to be able to exist without feeling belittled by the contempt of others or feeling arrogant by the praise of others. You may accept it, if you believe it to be true, but you must know it for yourself first.

"Distinguished" doesn't really convey that, in my opinion. A different term you might look into is "Renaissance man", which is a period term that means too much for my taste. Differently, the word "character" means to make a mark: it is not a coincidence that it describes a personality as well as a unit of writing.

[Judge]

You think you're an individual, but you're not, you are god simply having an wonderful physical dream by choice. There are no others here, just you soaking up all the fun, hate, love, pain, joy, sadness and bliss.

This physical plane is very dense so the experience is very intense via the full range of sensory perception, but it only lasts a few hours seemingly everyday.

There is no day after day.

The importance of individuality is actually the importance of realising you are the only conscious being here.

Works for me

Judge

[Xanafax]

Thank you all for the great posts, this is a wonderfully intelligent thread, there are so real good arguments.

Despite the arguments over the correct diction required to describe what I am saying, I still prefer individual.

To the arguments about how some things can be achieved as a collective - no. Nothing can achieved as a collective, nothing positive anyway.

The work of one man, truly devoted, standing alone will always be greater than the work of a thousand men who work as a group.

Why? Because when you work as a group you have to go at the speed of the slowest worker. If you go at the speed of the fastest worker, the work is done poorly or not at all by the slower ones, and so you may as well have one person doing it anyway.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

Why? Because when you work as a group you have to go at the speed of the slowest worker. If you go at the speed of the fastest worker, the work is done poorly or not at all by the slower ones, and so you may as well have one person doing it anyway.

How many companies have you started?

I ask because you have a nice theory here, but no examples. No proofs that a collective is necessarily bound by the "speed of the slowest worker". No understanding that speed does not compute to quality or capability. At a company, you are forced to recognize your limits: you cannot do everything, and someone else has to pick up your slack.

How did America become the leader of space flight? Which individual was responsible? Was it Kennedy, with his inspiring speech? Was it Armstrong, who set down the first foot? Was it the Russians, who prompted the acceleration? Or was it the army of engineers who worked together, in a collective, to this day still nameless, in order to design and fashion all the components that made the spaceship achieve its objective of getting there, landing, and coming back safely?

[Xanafax]

I have started no companies. I have worked in many groups of people, in classes, and with others.

So please Michael don't patronise me.

I have no scientific proof no. But I have many anecdotal proofs, proofs that allow me to believe in what I say.

Space Flight is a collective thing. There is no such one invention that gives space flight.

However Edison was the only one who invented the lightbulb. It was not a collective of nameless people like you say.

Einstein, Edison, Jefferson, Lincoln, Plato, Aristotle.

The things these people provided are not collective efforts! They are individual accomplishments.

And by stating that only a collective can provide real value you ignore the most obvious example of individual greatness available to us.

The founder of this site.

[NexusOfCompletion]

If Steve lived in a cave (with internet) and no one read it, would it still have the same value? Or does it have value because other people read it and took something from it?