When I talk about individualism I will not exclude the word society out of it.Individualists work according to their own will.They live for themselves and never expect any other person to live for them.However,they live in a world where individualists make up the society.Both society and an individual seek benefits from one another.Wherever in a transaction one of them is at a loss,then they never deal in that transaction.The only thoughts that are kept in their minds before dealing are syllogism,logic and self-interest.If they offer a sanction then the transaction takes place otherwise it gets rejected.They let the dissenters go their way and do not swerve from their own and thus there is no place for any sort of indignant objection.
As Ayn said,"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between man and his perception of reality,is to negate and paralyze his means of survival;to force him to act against his own judgement,is like forcing him to act against his own sight.Whoever,to whatever purpose or extent,initiates the use of force,is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder:the premise of destroying man's capacity to live."
Individualists never deal with force but with a 'rational mind'and this is an only mean to his end.
Now an individual cannot seek all this without the society.Society has to finally deal with him so that he could attain the benefits.So,indirectly he is working towards building a society.But,this is not his main purpose.His main purpose is to fulfill his own needs.Society is there for the welfare of an individual and so the individual is always inseparabe from the society.
However,individual is always above the society.After all,it is the individual only who at the very first place comes up with new ideas and gives sanction to them by expressing these ideas in his work in turn leading to the growth and development of the society.He sees this growth as his greatest pride.It is like a physical expression of his true values.It is like deriving physical pleasure out of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i guess u r a big fan of ayn rand. rite??
ReplyDelete:)
anshu ram:)
ReplyDeleteShe is my 'God'
Any debate or argument is usually like the myth of Sisyphus - I say something, you will say something else, which I will then contradict, followed by a contradiction from you... and so on and so forth the two debating parties keep on rolling the stone up the hill, only to have it roll down again, only to roll it up again... and this keeps on going for eternity.
ReplyDeleteAs such, your perceptions on Individualism and Society are neither right, nor wrong. There could be a thousand arguments to go along with what you have said, and there could be a thousand others that might go against what you have said. All of them would be right, and none of them would be wrong. Any argument or viewpoint, is merely a matter of perception. What works for one, what one believes in, and what makes one happy is the right argument for that individual.
I agree with some part of the post, I disagree with some. But whether I agree or disagree is beyond the point. For anybody to have any kind of individual perception, he/she has to be 'perceptive' enough to carry it.
To that end, allow me to commend you on the perceptive nature of your post, and the workings of your mind. You are an extremely insightful individual who is able to talk about philosophical issues tender for your age, and your perception of things around you - while neither right nor wrong - is not superficial. It is deep and contemplative.
Unless I have seriously erred, you are also a medical student and classmate of my friend Akanksha. To that end, I salute you even more, for being able to balance this deep, speculative thinking with the demanding schedule required by your medical syllabus. Kudos to you!
You have tried to say that its the way an individual perceives things that makes him judge what is right and what is not right.That an issue can be both right and wrong.For some it is right and for some the same is wrong.How would you define such an ambiguity?
ReplyDeleteFor if you cannot define then it means that things can never right at all.That no one can ever be right.
PS I was working on the same issue yesterday
Thank you:)
I would take that as a compliment;however its not difficult to manage since its something I love
It is not an ambiguity! It is simple subjectivity!
ReplyDeleteThe very notions of right and wrong are man-defined. Definitions and notions of right and wrong weren't faxed down to earth by god... we created them. Somewhere someplace in the course of history, a group of people sat down to create laws and notions... and amongst them, right and wrong were created. As they are but rules and notions created by men to suit their societal comfort, right has every inclination to be wrong, and wrong has every inclination to be right!
A very simple example. For centuries, people believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. That was RIGHT, and to say otherwise was WRONG. But it was something which man himself had said. Then came Galileo and suddenly, RIGHT was redefined as the Sun being the center of the Universe, and the old RIGHT became WRONG. The same is the example of the Earth being considered Flat or Round.
The examples I have given are tangible. As an intangible example, it was considered RIGHT for years for a Hindu wife to jump in her husband's pyre. Today, you might argue that such a notion can never be right, but your presumption jumps from the fact that societal acceptance of RIGHT now is anti-Sati.
Notions of right and wrong can never be universal; they are always subjective.
And even though I have defined the 'ambiguity', I will agree with what you said can be true only if I could not define it - that no one can ever be right, for that is the very manmade nature of right and wrong.
So practically I am wasting my time right now and even you are wasting your time by reading this blog.For according to you everything is right and wrong and even I am right and wrong.That there is no reality because reality is not the metaphysical.It is d manmade nature of both right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteBy saying that, you are drifting close to the existential school of thought. That wasn't exactly what I meant when I said that, but let it be! It was enjoyable having this discussion with you :)
ReplyDeleteWhat is existential school of thought?
ReplyDeleteThis ought to answer it!
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism