Reading through "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"

Odd? I get along rather well with my neighbours.  They are Christians, I am not.  Both of us however enjoy bird watching and photography.

Nothing wrong with being in and interacting with different groups as long as it is to mutual benefit and is a willing mutual participation.  Forced association to belong to one or more groups is what individualists abhor.  It is not a hard concept to grasp. 

  If I was for example forced to join a bird watching society in order for me to be able to photograph them I would move.  But what happens when mob mentality takes over and there are no more places to move to?

The problem with special interest groups that people often join in order to feel that nice cozy tribal oneness with is that as long as that group (lets call it group A) can point it's finger at another group and claim "we need special consideration to protect us from "X" group or conditions.  Group X says "We need protection from group Y's agenda.  As long as Group A gets what it wants, it does not care what happens to group Z or group R because hey "they are not part if our tribe who cares".  One thing all these groups DO have in common no matter what cause they believe in is that they do not seem to grasp the importance of the individual.  That if the individual was held as the only minority that needs protecting all these special interest groups would not be needed.  This includes woman's rights, gay rights, all the different race rights groups.

By the way Eva if you did not notice capitalism is the only political economic vehicle that embraces individual achievement. 

As for you being a collectivist/closet socialist has nothing to do with the fact you attend dust bunny U.  It is solely by your interactions and the way you deliver your messages.  Also your tactics of ridicule, evasion and sarcasm as your main mode of getting your points across are not exactly endearing qualities

Many if not all of us here are also interested in how society "works".

On that note another book you may be interested in reading that many of us if not all of us have read is "The ominous Parallels".  An interesting book of how one society "worked".

Sentence #1 of the Wiki article defines 'individualism' as a 'moral stance', which is fine.

My project, however, is to study how individualism as self-identity emerges from the process of socialization.

In order to do this, one must come to terms with 'Sociology'.

Crude remarks by certain fissiles that my inquiry somehow makes me a 'collectivist ' are an embarrasment to any websie that purports to take Objectivism seriously.

Web curios will read the exchange and say, "Wow! So judging from these remarks, Objectivism really is a bunch of hogwash!"

EM

Fred,

I think our disagreement re Durkheim is one of trying to understand him as a philospher (you) vs as a  sociologist (me).

In other words, If Durkheim were saying that we 'ought' to turn society into a worshipped object, I'd agree that he'd be making a collectivist statement of goals, to which I, too, would disagree.

Rather, I read him as a scientist trying to define how people are: moderns do worship society as much as do tribals, albeit in different ways.

Bergson caught on to this, and constructed an 'ought' model of individualism based upon a sort of struggle---as one would work his/her way through a crack in the cristal, the 'je-fele'.

Now for three philosophical points as such:

* Hume. Statements of 'is' must not be confused with 'oughts'.

* Individuaity is not 'given'. Rather it's achieved. Yet Rand seems to speak is if assertion is sufficient. So to the extent that I do understand Rand, I disagree.

Despite the urgings of Rand, Nietzsche, Sartre & Bergson, most don't, at least in terms of 'individualism' as defined by the philosophers as cited.

* Deleuze, influenced by the psychology of Guattari, developed a model of 'individualism' that greatly lowers the bar. In sum, we're all individualistic in our own way, developing 'lines of flight' away from socially-demanded norms.

Per Kant, this sense of self is innate. What becomes an 'individual' is, again, in the details of development.

Eva

(Edited by Matthews on 2/19, 9:14am)

Eva:

I think our disagreement re Durkheim is one of trying to understand him as a philospher (you) vs as a  sociologist (me).

I think that is entirely accurate.   I was thinking more in terms of Durkheim the religionist, not philosopher, but that is a distinction in search of a difference.  Uncharacteristically, that is not me being a wise guy; the fuzzy distinction between religion and philosophy is reflected in the taxonomy of many Universities, where folks long ago threw up their hands trying to decide what of any significance distinguished one from the other and simply refer to "The Department of Religion and Philosophy."

The religion I see in Durkheim's writings I call "Social Scientology" even if it has been shortened to "Sociology."    (The reasons for shortening it to sociology, to me, are clearly political reasons.)

So from my admitted bias, your statement above is similar(as perceived by me, this is how I read it)to the following:

 I think our disagreement re L. Ron Hubbard is one of trying to understand him as a religionist/philospher (you) vs as a scientologist (me).

Was L. Ron Hubbard's  Dianetics/Scientology really a science, because he "portrayed himself as a nuclear physicist"?    Or, was it a religion?    Did he foam on about the concsiousness of all concisousness,, the highest form of psychic life, an unseen something that sees all from above, and so on, like Durkheim?  Or, did he have another  aspect of his schtick that would permit his carny act to be distinguished from some other political power grab over his fellow peers here on earth?

Because a peer goes on about the sacred and the profane, must we mere providers of the profane pony up our mote of secular profanities in order to subsidize the got-to-have-it naval gazing, eyes rolled into the back of the head musings of those who contemplate and deliver to us the 'sacred?'     Apparently, I can't survive without the sacred -- which is provided by these occasional cart riders -- whereas the cart tiders can't survive without the profane, so we all have our places in the Tribe, profane worldy commercial/secular grubby cart pullers and sacred liesurely cart riders.

Being the witch doctor up in front of the sacrificial altar du juor has been a great gig for thousands of years.   My only remaining question on the whole topic is, why would we grubby profaners ever fall for the gig?

Fred

Dean:

It is hogwash because to us capitalists... society is a capitalist relation which highly permits and benefits from individualism.

..and worse: association under a model of free association, vs. forced association.

regards,

Fred

Eva:

Can you interpret for me the science to be found in his definition of "S"ociety, to be found in -his summary- of Religious Formes?  This isn't some side note, some flight of fancy of his.  This is placed prominantly in -his summary- of his bit of scientific inquiry...

I'm not seeing the head counting and lab coats; I'm seeing his eyes rolled up into the back of his head.

Society is not at all the illogical or a-logical, incoherent and fantastic being which has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only in their permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the minds with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them.

Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York, The Free Press, 1954), p. 444.

Seriously; that doesn't blink away by ignoring it.

Fred

Eva:

Today, a sociologist would take a look at ther cult of scientology and first, count noses.

No dispute; that is what a True Believer Herdist would be expected to do first, last, and always: shim the world only into group think, the religion's playing field of non-choice, and then, in child like fashion, set up the bowling pins in groups of ten and knock them down as a group.

Today, yesterday, tomorrow.  Yes, that is what a sociologist would do.   It is a tautology.

And from deep inside the religion, almost impossible to see as anything but the revealed Truth.

Fred

Contrast a sociologist against an organizational behaviorist such as Objectivist Edwin Locke.

re74

As Industrial Psychologists, Locke & Latham worked in an organizational setting to produce a widely-accepted theory of management called 'motivation theory'. This more or less involves setting quantifiable targets.

Their empirical work also demonstrated that people don't really respond to motivational talky-talk. Also, btw, 'measureable 'self-esteem' is a result of success, not a predictor or causal agent.

Their work as psychologists complements sociology, it does not stand in contradiction. In my research on emotional facters in learning, I work with sociolgists, too. If anyone really wants to see hoe the two disciplines represent sides of the same coin, kindly refer to Locke's CV, under education as Masters degree, Sociology.

Lastly, it's pleasingly inspirational to see a legitimate intellectual from Dust Bunny U writing popular stuff that seems to sell.. 

EM

re77

 >>>>I'd doubt seriously that they were measuring self-esteem. [etc....]...<<<<

Either self-esteem is 'measurable' or not. If not, then no one, including Branden, is making any sense.

So yes, Rosenberg is self-reporting, as is to any extent all self-esteem scales, includuing Branden's. Concerning the later, the technique of sentence -completion does not alter the obvious ontological barrier that's present in all phenomenology.

In other words, to say that his own data was correctly interpreted, , Branden would have to submit said data to an independent observer who came up with the same results as to how symbolic referants should be understood.

What's interesting, however, is how the Rosenberg results are successfully used as a predictor of future success. In this sense, at least, it's no different than Quantum Mechanics. Both are highly associative, but not classically causal because certain 'how's' are missing.

The importance of L&L's work is to have reversed the causal arrow, so to speak, in the classical Jamesean sense. Self esteenm is the effect of failure. Rah-rah self help won't help.

Rather than mental orientation, what accounts for self-esteem is success. This, again, is why L&L stress the importance of tangable, quantifiable goals.

EM