I apologize for it being messy. I have to apply to college tonight.
Citizens of any community must not create individuality - their
wealth, work, and happiness - through self-interest, but instead individuality must be rooted
in a positive desire to better the community and people of which they are a
part.
Are you saying individuality and selfishness are never related, or simply that they cannot lead to a successful community? How do you quantify the value of a community?
ReplyDeleteIsaac -
ReplyDeleteCan you put the specifications of identity somewhere else in your introduction paragraph? I feel like it interrupts my reading of your actual argument.
Can an individual just be a neutral, individual part of their society/community? Does individuality have to stem from specifically positive, or just not negative intentions?
If you're (presumably) arguing that individuals shape their own identities - rather than being formed by their community - than why do they consent to being a part of that community? What it that attachment?
What is the difference between a community and a society?
Caleb, my intention by this thesis is stating that individuality hand selfishness are too often related to one another, and that this negates from community success. The value of a community is determined by its coherence, collaboration, and respect, and none of these can be actualized when citizens create their identity through selfishness.
ReplyDeleteHally, any society, in essence, is a community. Any action one takes part in has effects on the people around them, whether that is the intention or not. Being singular in a society is impossible, because even if you disregard the people around you, they would feel the effects of your rejection of them. Ultimately we must act with a communal mindset in order to maximize the potential of the community, and the only way to be successful in this is to go about it non-selfishly with positive intentions.
I feel like when you say this: "The value of a community is determined by its coherence, collaboration, and respect, and none of these can be actualized when citizens create their identity through selfishness"... you're on to something interesting.
ReplyDeleteIs there a way that you can incorporate this into the structure of your actual argument? Is there a way to link the actualization of community to the pursuit of individual enlightenment? Is the enlightened individual (Kant) a selfish one? What about Nietzsche's free spirit? Is that something that is necessarily bad? I wonder if the focus on community over the identify piece might help make the writing smoother?
I think you can say that a society bases on selfishness is not as "good" as a society based on collaboration and that this is true on the level of the individual in each society. This is good, but why? You need a definition of the "good society" and its relationship to the individual.
ReplyDeleteHere's my newest thesis. It could still maybe be simplified, so let me know if any of you have any suggestions.
ReplyDelete–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
An enlightened society is one that harbors coherence, collaboration, and respect, and without enlightened citizens whose actions are absent of selfishness and autonomy, this society can never progress to a better state.
I'm glad you have found a definition of a good society... I'm still a little confused about the relationship between an enlightened society and enlightened citizens. Is an enlightened society one that is only made up of enlightened citizens? Then, once that is clear... is there progression for an enlightened society? In other words, if you imply at the end that society needs to progress to a "better state"... is there anything better than the enlightened society from the beginning? Also, what is the good inherent in progress?
ReplyDeletehelpful?