The two basic competing political theories in this world are individualism and collectivism. Individualism is the belief that the individual is the most important unit of society. Collectivism is the belief that the collective is the most important unit of society. Clearly both cannot be correct, but do we have to choose?
The danger of collectivism, to the individualist, is that the individual will be subordinated to the needs of the many. Individualists fear that, if we place too much importance on the collective, then it will lead to a deterioration of individual rights and freedoms. Historically this has certainly been the case, and there are many examples of this occurring. Collectivists, however, argue that if individual freedom is upheld no matter what, then it could lead to entire groups losing out because of the selfish desires of a few.
Either philosophy, when viewed from the starting point of the other, seems to be problematic.
Looking at the merits of individualism, we see a few points. Firstly, that from the perspective of what actually exists and experiences itself, it is always by nature, an individual. There is no 'group' which exists in itself independent of its individual parts. And yet, if we look at the human body, we see individual cells which come together, along with various systems, to form the human body, over which an individual consciousness, the human, rules. How often does the human ask each of the individual cells in the body what they would like? We may laugh at that statement, but that only shows our bias as the individual consciousness that we perceive ourselves to be. Some question whether the 'self' is even real at all. It is in fact an artifact of the body, not existing before or after death. That is not to say there is no after life. We do not pretend to know one way or another. But the self that we experience as our self on earth is a collection of sense perceptions, emotions, feelings, thoughts, beliefs, ideas, desires, wants, needs, etc that form based on the experiences of the body within its environment.
As we go down that rabbit hole of thought we see that the lines between individual and collective are not as clear as they may seem at first glance. What is the individual? Is the human consciousness the individual or is it the body? If there is a difference between the two then which one is the master and which the slave?
It is perhaps that the whole concept of individual vs collective is still looking at Life from within the paradigm of the master/slave relationship? We are certain that either side would claim that they are the true proponents of freedom and each side would present reasonable arguments as well as emotional appeals that really betray a deep seated sense of self-interest.
We would argue that there is no way around self-interest. It is a given. And yet, if we place 'self' at the center of the universe, then don't we have to be honest about what allows a self to exist in the first place? Are we self created? Do we not enter the world completely at the mercy of our environment and demand that others put their lives on hold in order to care for us and ensure our survival?
Do we then contribute to society out of a sense of guilt for having demanded so much? And yet, do we not take some things for granted? For example, the light from the sun, the air, the water. Are those things not given to us freely for our use?
What if reality were structured in such a way that the individual had complete freedom and yet it never interfered with the 'collective' in any negative way. Some may say that there is no such thing as the collective (they would likely consider themselves an individualist) and that the collective is just an abstraction, and yet, as we saw with the example of the human body, a collection of individuals can form a larger self-aware individual. So is there really a separation between the collective and the individual at all? Is it our minds that create the abstraction of the 'collective' when it is not there in reality? Is it equally fair to say that our minds then falsely create the distinction of the individual?
Perhaps it is a product of our education system and of 'modern science' that teaches us to think of things as separate and discrete. But then what does it mean to say that everything is one?
These are questions that might be difficult to answer in one short post. I don't even pretend to have the answers. Perhaps someone else has thought of these questions and has a good answer. If so, please comment and let me know. Let me know what you think as well.
From where we stand at the moment, I believe that for reality to exist in a balanced and harmonious way, there must be a way to reconcile the individual and the collective and in a way where we do not subordinate the one to the other.
And this is not mere philosophical musing. In case you haven't been paying attention there is some serious shit going on right now in the world. Things are accelerating. People are beginning to wake up and realize that the world is not just going on as we think it should. Communications technology is bringing us together as it drives us apart. People are fighting for equal rights while fighting to suppress those that disagree with them. We are looking for a sense of community and relationship while standing up for our individuality and self-expression. We are a species in crisis and yet a species that is growing, evolving, and maturing. We are afraid and yet we are excited for the future.
Is it 'we' or is it 'I'? Where does the boundary between me end and you begin? When I breathe out does not the same air leave my body and enter yours? When I die, does not the material of my body go back to the earth and get recycled into perhaps thousands or even millions of other individuals?
We look forward to sharing more of our thoughts and perspectives here on this blog and we invite you to comment if you feel so compelled and to share this blog with others if you feel it is of value.
Until next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment