I haven't found a way to fully express my ideas, but I've reached the point that I'm only going in circles with this. Those ideas- that individualism is isolating, meaningless (doesn't matter if one person reaches greatness- can't be shared), prevents discourse, and is the basis of the most extreme evils.
So, this is what I've got: Progress, society's pursuing of an empathetic and evolving existence, is reached when it becomes a shared goal, and individualism is abandoned for the greater good.
So, this is what I've got: Progress, society's pursuing of an empathetic and evolving existence, is reached when it becomes a shared goal, and individualism is abandoned for the greater good.
Your ideas are intriguing. I have a couple questions though.
ReplyDeleteIs progress something that can be reached? To what extent must we remove individualism to successfully pursue progress? Is it even possible to completely remove individualism from a society?
That actually sounds kind of scary to me. Completely remove individualism? Like Calvin said, is that possible? With this argument, would you say that nothing in our modern world is progress? Also can evolution happen without individuals? There would be no variation to induce change.
ReplyDeleteI just read over what I wrote and it sounds pretty harsh, but really Emma that's a really interesting proposition and you articulate it clearly. Good use of a definition and causality.
Emma -- can you define the "greater good"? If you abandon individuality does the great good ultimately only become one of utilitarian ideals (the greatest good only for the greatest number)? Is there anything problematic about that?
ReplyDeleteHow do we measure progress? Can it be comparative?
If we are only looking at the consequences... things like progress... do the means of achieving the consequences become (for lack of a better word) inconsequential? Does morality achieved by only examining the consequentialism of the act actually allow for individual concern? Should there be any space for the individual (echo of Calvin and Clara's thoughts here)? Can you make a judgment call on the nature of good and bad? Can we measure some progress as good (and therefore some as bad)? Is all change positive? Is all progress positive? Are there any negative consequences to removing the focus on the individual? Can you link progress to enlightenment?
I agree that the "individual" maybe too much of a sacred object in our society, but still how do you differentiate (if you do) between the individual and individualism. They don't have to be the same thing. My question is the relationship between empathy and progress. How are these inherently connected? That seems the key the paper: Can they be seen in relationship to each other without recourse to God or eternal truths like in Plato? If so suggest it in your thesis.
ReplyDelete