|
Indiviuality and Human Solidarity
|
|
A friend pointed out that I don't use 'we' when referring to human beings. I told her that there are others who don't want to be grouped into this generalizing pronoun. I only refer to humans as 'people' or 'they' because I keep this in mind. Our conversation ended there; she may have understood or she may have not. My question is this: What wins out in the end, being an individual or being part of a group? As individuals, people can be themselves and have the ability to stand out of a crowd. This way, everyone can be positive that his/er life is his/er own. But as a species, a person needs to know that s/he has others who are similar to him/er. This is why there are religions, organizations, and forums just like this one. "With what makes someone his own, he must find in another," or something like that. |
|
Re: Indiviuality and Human Solidarity
Link |
by
 
on 2008-04-19 13:13:50 (edited 2008-04-19 13:20:16)
|
|
I express humans as 'people' and 'they' if those humans have no relation or connection whatsoever in my life. Sure we are the same species brought up in different cultures, I can't simply express them as 'we'. I guess the word 'we' is more influential in the human society, where that word directly establishes an emotional communication between each human. There's nothing wrong to live as an individualist, because the people around you are just people who know you (or assumed to know you) and treat you just casually. And the majority won't be personal about you and your life, unless the reasons foretold. I believe most humans preferred to be individualistic in this century, due to exposure to media and tabloids, and the idea of the ultimate freedom of doing for oneself. Being selfish can be good (ie own resources for oneself in order to live), can be bad as well (suffering from depression, loneliness etc) Living together in a group can be beneficial, once the communication between each subordinate (member) is established and structured in the long-term period. A group works together to achieve any goals specified, and be together to enjoy the fun. It sure reduces the feeling of loneliness, but increases the risk of dependency. I would say right now, being part of a group will win out in the end, because of all the support, contribution and hardwork each subordinate made, the powers are combined together to reach out that winning post, the desired goal they run after. |
|
Re: Indiviuality and Human Solidarity
|
|
I guess that's logical. It's so difficult to be the only one of your kind. People need to have closure with others since standing alone can feel so vulnerable. I know there are those who feel a sort of pride when referring to people as a single entity. 'We were the first mammals to walk upright.' 'We can get through this together.' There's this power, like 'we' automatically reassures you since it cannot be questioned. But, then there are things which exploit this soldarity. Commercials use bandwagon propaganda all the time. 'Don't be the last person on your block to get one!' 'Everyone's doing it so should you!' The fear of not being included can cloud a person's better sense. "You're either with us or against us." The fact that this can happen to anyone makes me weary of the whole thing. |
|
Re: Indiviuality and Human Solidarity
Link |
by
on 2008-04-21 04:00:29 |
|
Meh, sometimes what you heard from certain group of people are completely useless and provides less or even no application to your life. They are just words of expression, and an individual is always perceived by what the members have proclaimed, judging their looks and actions whether they are reliable to be trusted upon. It's up to the invidual to be influenced by those expressed statements. Being in a group can be beneficial yet disasterous to any members. I work in groups only if we are directed to perform a task i.e group college assignment. I prefer to be on my own once that's done. Why? No one cares after that. Be a strong individual for your sake. It's you that governs your life, and you are responsible over what actions you do. |
|
Re: Indiviuality and Human Solidarity
|
|
In my opinion, during one's youth, one should be fiercely independent and avoid all calls to "useless" organizations, cliques, or any group that has no real purpose(church groups, charities, social clubs, etc.) except to provide solace from loneliness (which should be completely ignored during this period because its an impediment to one's true purpose). This is the period when your talent is at the peak and these types of groups only slow down your potential. Dependency on others is absolutely terrible at this stage because it makes you allocate your precious time to something that doesn't have a real benefit to you. Sure being popular gives off a pleasurable feeling, but it cannot replace the satisfaction of creating or developing something on your very own. On the other hand, any group that bases its goal around a talent or a skill can be sought out because they have people who have the same interests as you and can serve as competition, which is very beneficial in increasing your motivation to excel in your craft. Ultimately, however, as you grow old and you slowly lose your abilities, that is when these groups that are based on "love" should come in. This is a very logical move because once your talents are lost, you pretty much have little hope left and "love" can serve as a palliative before your ultimate demise into the Earth. Just my two cents. I guess I'm pretty cynical. |
|
Re: Indiviuality and Human Solidarity
Link |
by
on 2008-04-27 11:46:01 (edited 2008-04-27 11:55:32)
|
|
dprezzion, your quotes. my opinions are there. "In my opinion, during one's youth, one should be fiercely independent and avoid all calls to "useless" organizations, cliques, or any group that has no real purpose(church groups, charities, social clubs, etc.) except to provide solace from loneliness (which should be completely ignored during this period because its an impediment to one's true purpose). This is the period when your talent is at the peak and these types of groups only slow down your potential." That is not always the case. And no way a youth should be fiercely independent. A youth still wants to feel belonged to few groups that he feels acceptable, i.e. his nuclear and extended families, his friends, his peers (those that does not have to be his friends, but their interests match his', at least). Much isolated youths ended up being asbo (anti-social behaviour) people, which vandalises anyone else's property for his own cruel reasons. Try not to underestimate parents, friends, relatives and teachers greatly. They are the ones who will motivate that individual to be dependent during times of troubled. There's no point being hot-headed and alone while he/she can't figure out what makes him/her so troubled on his/her own. "Dependency on others is absolutely terrible at this stage because it makes you allocate your precious time to something that doesn't have a real benefit to you." Oh my word, you are just so cold, aren't you? An individual will usually find unexpected benefits by allocating some time for others i.e. being dependent on the experienced worker for a few weeks will benefit the unexperienced worker such new skills and qualities. He gained work experience, dammit! Dependency ain't that terrible. And workers are dependent to their respectable bosses who pay their fat monthly salaries! THAT AIN'T BAD! "Ultimately, however, as you grow old and you slowly lose your abilities, that is when these groups that are based on "love" should come in. This is a very logical move because once your talents are lost, you pretty much have little hope left and "love" can serve as a palliative before your ultimate demise into the Earth." Man, you really need to lighten up. Talents never lose out unless you are determine to keep them, no matter if you are married, got kids, even having chronic diseases once you are 60--- talents don't die, you make them dead if you won't keep them alive. Now where's your motivation then? Even love motivates someone to nurture the talents. |
|
Re: Indiviuality and Human Solidarity
|
|
I think the question points out to the never ending debate between individualism and collectivism. For me, collectivism stands out. Why? Cause no one can live without others. For every species in the world, dependence in each other is the main mechanism to survive. I can't think of anything surviving without someone else to depend on. Also, our attitudes and personalities are significantly influenced by social environment. Our individual world is connected to the social. To sum it up, social identity has a more influence in the individual identity.  |
|
Re: Indiviuality and Human Solidarity
|
|
I take individualism as a compliment. Talent creates individuality and it is also hard to secure. But then, it makes you special. Yes, collectivism is essential for living. It is how civilization reached the way it is today. Also, the commercials are made for the business's own profit. Don't get weary about that.  |
|
Re: Indiviuality and Human Solidarity
|
|
@dprezzion: I don't really agree with this complete-individual-while-not-depending-on-others point of view, because it doesn't seem to make any sense. I believe to become an individual, one must be influenced by the society around him/er and make his/er own opinion about it. Individuality can be affected by what someone sees on the News or the kids s/he hangs out with. Yet, most people still retain what makes them who they are. @w00t0s: Well put rebuttal; it was very cut and dry. @hina28: 'Collectivism', thank you! I knew there was a specific word for 'human solidarity'. @Emphy: I know commercials are just out to make a profit, but the fact that the majority of the public fall for this bandwagon technique is what makes me weary. I mean, how can people get suckered so easily? |
|
Re: Indiviuality and Human Solidarity
|
|
with regard to what NiN said, the group is more beneficial to be in due to the fact that there will no doubt be conflicts among group members, which only serves as learning curves in life, and, when taken care of the right way, makes us better people in the end. and the memories + good times are also a plus. plus an opportunity to be a leader. or find inspiration in someone. there are innumerable benefits. with regard to the topic itself, I would differentiate between 'people', 'we', etc because I like being politically correct and I hate people picking apart everything I say ("not ALL of us here so and so like you said >:[" ) 
wooo maplestory |
|
Re: Indiviuality and Human Solidarity
|
|
"First human was created teamed up" ?
wooo maplestory |
|
Re: Indiviuality and Human Solidarity
Link |
by
 
on 2008-09-29 16:26:35 |
wow, I never thought of the semantics of "we" and "people" when talking before. I will be more aware of that now, though. I view myself as an individual apart from a group and shy away from the group mentality, yet I still use "we" and "us" when referring to humans. I think most people need to feel like they belong in some type of group. Individualism is a wonderful thing, but feeling ostacized from society isn't so wonderful. We need to develope some kind of "self" and not rely solely on others for support, but there's also "no man is an island" and all that stuff. Somethings require a group effort but it is possible for man to live by themselves. Wow, i'm basically contradicting myself.  |