tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (04/02/88)
In article <11027@ut-sally.UUCP> turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) writes: >In article <2523@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >> There are many flavors of "individualism", but one idea that is common >> to all is that "individualism" means respecting the natural rights of >> other indivuduals. > >Well, no. Max Stirner's writings are, by almost any measure, an >example of extreme invidualistic philosophy, but he did not >believe in natural rights. Many libertarians today (but certainly >not most) hold that natural rights are a myth, perhaps in part >because those who write on natural rights (Rothbard, Gewirth, >etc) never quite manage to establish them. It seems we are having minor disagreements about the definition of the name of our newsgroup... I define "individualism" to mean the desire to make decisions as an individual, rather than making decisions based solely upon peer pressure, or guesses about what pressures imaginary groups of peers would exert. Another contending definition of "individualism" is the tendency to treat others as individuals rather than members of groups. This sort of follows from the first definition, since if you make decisions taking into account things other than peer pressure, then one naturally assumes that others may make decisions independently of their peers, so treating them as individuals is obviously necessary. I would consider it a waste of time to try to use a definition that talks about "natural rights", because we can argue for an arbitrary amount of time about exactly what "natural rights" a person has, and there isn't any way to resolve such disagreements. Basically, I'm asserting here that the term "natural rights" does not name any abstraction you can form from observed reality (hints of general semantics here...). -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf
turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) (04/03/88)
In article <1281@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes: > ... if you make decisions > taking into account things other than peer pressure, then one > naturally assumes that others may make decisions independently of > their peers, so treating them as individuals is obviously necessary. Necessary for what purpose? While this was a small part of your posting, you are making precisely the kind of logical leap here that leads others to natural rights theories. I find this slightly ironic, since you write one paragraph later: > ... I'm asserting here that the term "natural rights" does not name any > abstraction you can form from observed reality (hints of general > semantics here...). Russell .
tad@tekgen.TEK.COM ((Thomas A. Dowe)) (04/03/88)
Defining individualism(?) An oxymoron; terrific example. However, I feel comfortable, at times, with generalizations. So, let's define individualism as--no definition. With the individual, the sum is certainly greater, etc. "No-definition". Thereby, and therefrom, making the "individual" the Tao, darhma/dahhma, zen, etc., etc. (etc., etc... here is a chance for an editor type to correct my grammar.) You know, like--"MU". Of course, "realization" of "no-definition" would meld an individual with *[(WHAT?)]*, and, supposedly, erase the "individual" part. So, it looks like meditation and other religious practices would certainly be anti-indiv- idualism; don't you think? Now politics... -- -- Tad Dowe tad@tekgen.UUCP MS 19-434, Tektronix, PO Box 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-7705
tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (04/05/88)
In article <11046@ut-sally.UUCP> turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) writes: >In article <1281@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes: >> ... if you make decisions >> taking into account things other than peer pressure, then one >> naturally assumes that others may make decisions independently of >> their peers, so treating them as individuals is obviously necessary. > >Necessary for what purpose? I was arguing for "psychological plausibility" here, to claim that most of the people that consider themselves individualists by one of the definitions I was proposing would be individualists according to the other. In this post I failed to separate the mushy logic people use to decide how to deal with others from the hard logic that I'm really claiming is true. Oh well. To continue my folly, I'll try again. Here's the chain of mushy reasoning that will cause many independent-thinker type individualists to be treat-others-as-individuals type individualists: I'm an independent-thinker type individualist, so I can think different thoughts from those around me, so it is possible for people in general to do this, so I had better be prepared for other people to do it, so I cannot assume that others will be identical to groups they are a part of, so I'm a treat-others-as-individuals type individualist. Does that make more sense to you? -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf