The good of the group; The individual.

[blackdahlia515]

I've recently come to the realization that the good of the group is more important than the good of the individual. But the good of the individual has to be equally as important if not more important than the good of the group, because the individuals are the ones who make up the group, and if the individuals that make up the group are not well, then the group itself is not well. I'm yet to figure out where it balances out. This needs intellectual conversation/debating until it reaches the point of being a fully developed ideal to me.

Yes I know I'm essentially a liberal communist.

Opinions/disagreements/views/whatever are welcome. Flaming/disagreeing rants are not.

[mrblonde77]

Good the individual is much more important. You can live by yourself, you don't NEED a community. Without the good of the individual, this world is entirely fucked. Without the good of the group, this world is....what we are living?

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

Without the good of the group, this world is....what we are living?

What about social contract?

Unless your a hermit in the woods, growing your own food, you ARE benefiting totally from the good of the group.

The vast majority of human life is sustained this way.




But to the original OP: this is something I'm still stumped on.

[blackdahlia515]

Yeah....I think of questions that are don't have answers(or at least not definite ones) alot of times and it really fucks with my mind.

[dynasty]

Originally Posted by blackdahlia515

I've recently come to the realization that the good of the group is more important than the good of the individual. But the good of the individual has to be equally as important if not more important than the good of the group, because the individuals are the ones who make up the group, and if the individuals that make up the group are not well, then the group itself is not well. I'm yet to figure out where it balances out. This needs intellectual conversation/debating until it reaches the point of being a fully developed ideal to me.

Yes I know I'm essentially a liberal communist.

Opinions/disagreements/views/whatever are welcome. Flaming/disagreeing rants are not.

no offense man, but i think you really have to think more about this. i can definitely see you have a lot of thoughts you want to express.

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

What about social contract?

Unless your a hermit in the woods, growing your own food, you ARE benefiting totally from the good of the group.

The vast majority of human life is sustained this way.




But to the original OP: this is something I'm still stumped on.

both to the threadstarter and rasta, have you read the social contract and discourses by rousseau? i definitely suggest picking it up to try and be less...stumped lol.

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by dynasty

both to the threadstarter and rasta, have you read the social contract and discourses by rousseau? i definitely suggest picking it up to try and be less...stumped lol.

I remember reading it in high school... for either civics or philosophy.

Either way, that was like half an eon ago. I won't be getting around to it anytime soon -- maybe you'd like to post some excerpts?

[blackdahlia515]

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

I remember reading it in high school... for either civics or philosophy.

Either way, that was like half an eon ago. I won't be getting around to it anytime soon -- maybe you'd like to post some excerpts?

yeah, what he said.

[blackdahlia515]

[quote=dynasty;1654068]no offense man, but i think you really have to think more about this. i can definitely see you have a lot of thoughts you want to express.

yeah I know. I have ALOT of trouble getting my actual thoughts out in words that make sense the way it did in my head, I have a theory about it, let me know if you wanna hear it.

[dynasty]

"...But, as men cannot engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, they have no other means of preserving themselves than the formation, by aggregation, of a sum of forces great enough to overcome the resistance. These they have to bring into play by means of a single motive power, and cause to act in concert.
"This sum of forces can arise only where several persons come together: but, as the force of liberty of each man are the chief instruments of his self-preservation, how can he pledge them without harming his own interests, and neglecting the care he owes himself? This difficulty, in it's bearing on my present subject, may be stated in the following terms:
'The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all , may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.' This is the fundamental problem of which the social contract provides the solution.
"...If then we discard from the social compact what is not of its essence, we shall find that it reduces itself to the following terms: 'Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, an, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.'"

"Does it follow from this that the general will is exterminated or corrupted? Not at all: it is always constant, unalterable, and pure; but it is subordinated to other wills which encroach upon its sphere. Each man, in detaching his interest from the common interest, sees clearly that he cannot entirely separate them; but his share in public mishaps seems negligible beside the exclusive good he aims for making his own. Apart from this particular good, he wills the general good in his own interest, as strongly as anyone else."

Originally Posted by blackdahlia515

yeah I know. I have ALOT of trouble getting my actual thoughts out in words that make sense the way it did in my head, I have a theory about it, let me know if you wanna hear it.

sure, please share.

[blackdahlia515]

ok, it'll be hard to explain over the internet but i'm gonna try.

basically i think that there are three levels of (brain/thinking/conscience, not sure yet). The deepest, most complicated thoughts originate in the third level, less complicated and deep thoughts in the second, and the most simple in the first. Thoughts from the third level have to pass through the second and first levels, where by the time they are through the first level and "out", or communicated, they are usually distorted, incomplete, or they simply didn't even make it that far. It's like a story told through generations, the original(third level) knows it the best, they tell it to the second, who may change it slightly and lose parts of it, and the same on to the first generation, and then it is "out" or again, communicated. I'll try and make a picture that could help explain it with paint and put it on here.







P.S. - I know I'm fucking terrible at explaining things and just talking in general, but if you followed all that, then you're one of the few who can.

EDIT - oh yeah, and i believe that when tripping acid all four are brought together, at the strength/efficiency/whatever of the third.

[Zylark]

This is simple.

The individual always win. You and me and everyone. However we cannot win to such a degree that it have a significant negative effect on others. Or the golden rule if you wish.

The complexity starts when we try to formulate this into law and policy...

edit: For example, should Saddam executed? There is no question of his guilt. To me just killing him is though first of all inhuman and then not punishment enough. Have him locked up for life like Hess (of WW2 fame) was, is to me a much more severe and fitting punishment... But this is really a bit off topic. Just saying that killing people for whatever reason is not ever a good thing.