[Philosophy] The independence paradox

[Xannari Ferrows]

You're all individuals, right? I hope so, otherwise this could be hard to understand.

So right from day 1, I bet you have been told to be yourself, and that nothing else is more important. Well, that's true! Being yourself is the #1 key to loving the "you" that you are now. That view may change in a few years, but by then, the "you" would have changed as well.

The definition of you: The construct of your life so far, your interests, beliefs, religion, accomplishments, morals, ect.

Morals is probably the most important, because it can dictate whether or not the "you" that you are now is...

Okay, so that half-statement kinda brought in a whole new topic, so to clear it up now: The "you" that you want to be is perfectly fine, but if that "you" entails the harm and/or suffering of others, than that image of "you" should change for the better. You may not like it, but it is the right thing to do.

With that out of the way, the best [and moral] "you" is always the way to go. That's what everyone wanted from the start, right? Well... no.

For you to become the "you" of image isn't what people want. What was meant by "yourself" means the "you" that they saw, not you. Think about it.

In school, were you often sick of doing the same thing over and over again, all because someone didn't quite understand, forcing everyone to be set back?

Did you still do it? If no, because YOU don't want to, that's the wiser choice, because it exercises your independence.

If yes, why? Why would you subject your mind to unnecessary stresses? Why go with the mold just to create more work?

If you think that's too theoretical of an analogy, try this:

You are at war. You are currently resting at camp, after exchanging weapons fire for days with your enemies. Enemies that have killed your friends in front of your own eyes. At night, you hear a moan of pain nearby. You slip out, and find it to be one of your enemies. Unarmed, dying, and in a lot of pain. You report to your commander for instructions. Say that you wanted the decision to kill him, since he's your enemy, and was among those that killed your allies, and wouldn't hesitate to shoot you on sight. You want to end his life, but your commander gives orders to rescue, and treat him. What would you do?

Comply with his orders, and save him? Or stick to your morals, and disobey orders? Disobey orders, and you are confined, all for exercising your rights as an individual.

So, to be an individual is to be punished for exercising it? To not be an individual is to be rewarded for blind compliance? If you're not supposed to be independent of the collective, why are you told it's a good thing?

[Bill Phil]

According to the laws of warfare you can't kill him. You can voice your concern about wanting to, but you can't. And that voice is YOURS.

Plus, I would want to be the better person and help the enemy.

A bit off topic: I think the Freedom paradox is more interesting. Some have to give up their freedom so others can have it.

[vger]

The paradox is even simpler than that.

We've all been told that "Being yourself" is the ideal.

That means if we decide to "be ourselves," we're following someone else's ideology

[Xannari Ferrows]

The paradox is even simpler than that.

We've all been told that "Being yourself" is the ideal.

That means if we decide to "be ourselves," we're following someone else's ideology

Well put. Man... ​Why didn't I think of this?

[Bill Phil]

You're unique, like everybody else.

[Jovus]

Hegel Hegel Hegel, I read him back in the day, Hegel Hegel Hegel, I can't put him away...

(Read Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Also, a fun phrase: transcendental unity of apperception.)

[Xannari Ferrows]

You're unique, like everybody else.

I find that hard to believe in today's society. Everyone is starting to act like drones, with the exception of a few from time to time.

[lajoswinkler]

To kill a wounded or helpless or incarcerated man would be a crime and if it happens in a war, it's a war crime for which you should stand on court. That is not only the law, but also my personal morality. If he's running towards you and trying to kill you, things change rapidly.

[impyre]

You *are* yourself... you cannot help it. If you spend your life emulating others, trying to be like them (some might call it trying to be something you're not) then obviously emulating others is part of who you are. If you want to go against the grain, and whine about others resisting your "uniqueness", then more power to you. I feel sorry for those that cannot make peace with who/what they are, regardless of morality. If it's in your nature to change yourself for the better, then you shall... if not, then not. All you can do is try to do right by you and your personal judgement.

- - - Updated - - -

I find that hard to believe in today's society. Everyone is starting to act like drones, with the exception of a few from time to time.

...the comment you were responding to is obviously dripping with sarcasm... it seems pretty plainly so. In fact, it's about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

[Xannari Ferrows]

You *are* yourself... you cannot help it. If you spend your life emulating others, trying to be like them (some might call it trying to be something you're not) then obviously emulating others is part of who you are. If you want to go against the grain, and whine about others resisting your "uniqueness", then more power to you. I feel sorry for those that cannot make peace with who/what they are, regardless of morality. If it's in your nature to change yourself for the better, then you shall... if not, then not. All you can do is try to do right by you and your personal judgement.

A reasonable argument. But the question I ask is: What if you don't want to be like everyone else? What if you want to be an individual, but have no choice other than to imitate the "right" thing? I'm a prime example of this. If I were to pursue myself as an individual, I'd probably be thrown in prison. Myself as an individual as I see it now is moral, selfless, and willing. But unfortunately those attributes aren't really appreciated in today's world.

To have the desire to mimic others is to mimic yourself as well... Sounds very familiar.

[Darnok]

I find that hard to believe in today's society. Everyone is starting to act like drones, with the exception of a few from time to time.

Well that is because you as "you" ... unique person might be smartest and most experienced person on continent, but if you are trying to be part of the herd (the deliberate use) your intelligence, your choices and wisdom are thrown away and you are starting to act like mindless sheep just to fit the herd.

Most of people don't think about world around them, even about simplest things, they are doing things because other people are doing those things, so it is safe, it must be safe and you should do this because other people are doing this, right?

Like driving car without seat belt... while you are driving your car you have to (in my country) remember to use them, you can't trust yourself on this one, you can't make your own choice.

But when you are sitting on bus or train you are forced to trust stranger with your life, because there is no seat belts there.

Comply with his orders, and save him? Or stick to your morals, and disobey orders? Disobey orders, and you are confined, all for exercising your rights as an individual.

This reminds me of moral trap... a child and several people walking on the tracks while a train is approaching.

And we have a choice to save a child or adults. Of course, this is trap, in which most people allow to restrict their morality by rules created by the author and their choice is to do nothing.

And here I think is the same most people is forced to choose something that looks like a smart choice, but it isn't.

This soldier is not your enemy, your enemies are people who give him orders, who trained him... same people who probably started war

Edited April 13, 2015 by Darnok

[xcorps]

A reasonable argument. But the question I ask is: What if you don't want to be like everyone else? What if you want to be an individual, but have no choice other than to imitate the "right" thing? I'm a prime example of this. If I were to pursue myself as an individual, I'd probably be thrown in prison. Myself as an individual as I see it now is moral, selfless, and willing. But unfortunately those attributes aren't really appreciated in today's world.

To have the desire to mimic others is to mimic yourself as well... Sounds very familiar.

"You" do not determine what is right or wrong. Those mores are imposed upon you from birth. You do not imitate behavior. You make a choice to act within the boundaries of what is acceptable to your community/society. If you make the choice to act outside of those boundaries, you are chastised.

[Darnok]

"You" do not determine what is right or wrong. Those mores are imposed upon you from birth. You do not imitate behavior. You make a choice to act within the boundaries of what is acceptable to your community/society. If you make the choice to act outside of those boundaries, you are chastised.

Who is setting those boundaries? I always thought that community, but since I am member of community I can set or move boundaries

If you let someone else to choose for you what is good and what is wrong you are slave of that person.

Only your conscience or subconscious (call it what you like) can set the moral rules, and if you follow them you will be able to sleep peacefully.

But if you rely on morality created by other person, or even the whole of society, then you are not a free man.

[Technical Ben]

The paradox is even simpler than that.

We've all been told that "Being yourself" is the ideal.

That means if we decide to "be ourselves," we're following someone else's ideology

That is the pure example of it. It is true that "being yourself" is in fact following the instruction of someone else, as none of us come up with that decision in isolation. (We cannot, as if we are in isolation, we do not know we are being "our selves" as we have no one else to compare to, we are just "being".)

However, while both options, "follow someone else" or "be yourself" are following advice or examples from other people, they give opposite results at times.

[Bill Phil]

I find that hard to believe in today's society. Everyone is starting to act like drones, with the exception of a few from time to time.

I don't think you caught the second half of the saying...

[xcorps]

Who is setting those boundaries? I always thought that community, but since I am member of community I can set or move boundaries

If you let someone else to choose for you what is good and what is wrong you are slave of that person.

Only your conscience or subconscious (call it what you like) can set the moral rules, and if you follow them you will be able to sleep peacefully.

But if you rely on morality created by other person, or even the whole of society, then you are not a free man.

You present changes to mores as a member of a community. Those changes are accepted or rejected by the community.

Freedom is subjective, not objective.

EDIT: Behaving in a way that acceptable to a group of people does not make you a slave. I hate it when people use the word slave as if it had more than one definition. You are not a slave to anything, excepting yourself. If you want to rob a bank, go do it. But accept the reality that if caught, you will lose your membership in the group. This concept "argh, I'm a slave because I can't do what I want" nonsense is pathetically immature. Leave the group. Go live on your own. Raise chickens, grow onions. Enjoy. Start a Cult. Do whatever you like, but if you break the rules of society, you will have to deal with the fallout.

Only your conscience or subconscious (call it what you like) can set the moral rules

Patently and undeniably false. Moral rules are set by the group. Rules exist for the purpose of defining what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Laws exist to codify those rules and provide protection from those who seek to break the rules. This idea that YOU alone are the moral focus of YOUR universe demonstrates a remarkable lack of awareness.

Please don't take what I have posted as a personal attack. I have no animus towards you as an individual. I am referring specifically to the ideas and concepts that you have posted in this thread.

Edited April 13, 2015 by xcorps

[Xannari Ferrows]

Patently and undeniably false. Moral rules are set by the group.

The most absurd statement I have ever heard. This statement implies that you aren't allowed to break the mold because it's what everyone else wants. Moral rules are relative to everyone. I'm not saying that something that involves the harm of others can be considered moral by this argument, but that it is by the very definition of moral,the opposite.

Of course moral rules are established by individuals. It's just the way of life that we live nowadays that makes everyone afraid to speak up. Acting out of the box will get you punished, and for often no good reason.

[xcorps]

The most absurd statement I have ever heard. This statement implies that you aren't allowed to break the mold because it's what everyone else wants. Moral rules are relative to everyone. I'm not saying that something that involves the harm of others can be considered moral by this argument, but that it is by the very definition of moral,the opposite.

Of course moral rules are established by individuals. It's just the way of life that we live nowadays that makes everyone afraid to speak up. Acting out of the box will get you punished, and for often no good reason.

What are you on about?

If you are alive, you are either a member of a social group or you are not. If you are, you accept the behavior that the group has determined to be acceptable before you ever existed. If you chose not to accept that behavior, the group labels you as an unfit member and you are ostracized. Your own personal sense of morality is only a factor when it comes into conflict with mores. I might think it as acceptable to eat human flesh, but if I do then I have to deal with the consequences that the group has determined are appropriate.

It's just the way of life that we live nowadays that makes everyone afraid to speak up.

What does this have to do with anything that I said? Speak up about what? You think there is some silent majority of people who are dissatisfied with a taboo on patricide?

Moral rules are relative to everyone.

They are subjective to the individual and objective to the group.

The most absurd statement I have ever heard

Then I invite you to rewrite Title VI of the Clean Air Act of the United States. See how that goes for you.

Edited April 13, 2015 by xcorps

[Xannari Ferrows]

I might think it as acceptable to eat human flesh, but if I do then I have to deal with the consequences that the group has determined are appropriate.

In some parts of the world, eating [not live] is deemed acceptable, and ones from those parts of the world should not be shunned for exercising that acceptability. No "group" should be allowed to act upon that.

What does this have to do with anything that I said? Speak up about what? You think there is some silent majority of people who are dissatisfied with a taboo on patricide?

The fact that moral rules is most commonly believed to be controlled by a higher power makes most afraid to give their opinion so long as it confronts the "prime" suggestion or whatever.

They are subjective to the individual and objective to the group.

Only 1 view is allowed in the group, so of course it is objective. They wont allow room for subjectivity. It's very close minded if you ask me.

Then I invite you to rewrite Title VI of the Clean Air Act of the United States. See how that goes for you.

That would require me exercising a belief I want to act upon, but I also don't want to live a life of unacceptance any more than I do now.

I invite you to believe what you want, though. In case it comes out like I'm attacking you, I'm not. I'm just defending my position.

[Stargate525]

You seem to be assuming that independence is a virtue in an of itself. Why is that the case? I am free insofar as my freedom does not intersect with anyone else's. I am free to do what I wish, but there is no guarantee of being free from consequences.

Further, I'm a social creature. We naturally crave companionship and community. We're wired that way. You're NOT supposed to be independent of 'the collective,' and it's very rare to find someone who truly WANTS to be. I'm not even certain where the paradox is here, to be honest.

[xcorps]

No "group" should be allowed to act upon that.

That's not how it works.

The fact that moral rules is most commonly believed to be controlled by a higher power makes most afraid to give their opinion so long as it confronts the "prime" suggestion or whatever.

History tells us otherwise. Unless you want to suggest that the efforts of someone like Rosa Parks are in vain.

They wont allow room for subjectivity

There is no they. It's WE.

That would require me exercising a belief I want to act upon

I said morals and rules are set by the group. You said that was absurd, that is was set by the individual. I invited you to create a rule other people would be obliged to follow. I was making a point. YOU as an individual do not create rules that others must adhere to, except in your own personal sphere of influence. Those who chose to be around you follow your rules. Those who don't want to, don't. But your influence on the whole of society is limited, so you as an individual can't go around setting mores. You need influence. Again, proved by history.

Societies evolve. The evolution can be easily traced.

Edited April 14, 2015 by xcorps

[Darnok]

You present changes to mores as a member of a community. Those changes are accepted or rejected by the community.

Freedom is subjective, not objective.

It is objective, your freedom ends when my begins.

EDIT: Behaving in a way that acceptable to a group of people does not make you a slave. I hate it when people use the word slave as if it had more than one definition. You are not a slave to anything, excepting yourself. If you want to rob a bank, go do it. But accept the reality that if caught, you will lose your membership in the group. This concept "argh, I'm a slave because I can't do what I want" nonsense is pathetically immature. Leave the group. Go live on your own. Raise chickens, grow onions. Enjoy. Start a Cult. Do whatever you like, but if you break the rules of society, you will have to deal with the fallout.

Patently and undeniably false. Moral rules are set by the group. Rules exist for the purpose of defining what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Laws exist to codify those rules and provide protection from those who seek to break the rules. This idea that YOU alone are the moral focus of YOUR universe demonstrates a remarkable lack of awareness.

You are confusing law and morality. Of course law is created by group and if you want to be part of that group you must obey their law. But that doesn't mean you have to accept morality of this group. Morality is your private set of rules, if you let that someone imposed it to you then you will be a slave.

A free man himself decide where is the line between good and evil. This allows you spot does the law is good or wrong, because there is such possibility.

And if law is wrong you can try to change it or leave the group.

But If you do as you said... and you accept both the law and the morality of the group, how do you determine what is good and what is wrong?

How you can be sure group is not creating immoral law?

[Xannari Ferrows]

You seem to be assuming that independence is a virtue in an of itself. Why is that the case? I am free insofar as my freedom does not intersect with anyone else's. I am free to do what I wish, but there is no guarantee of being free from consequences.

Further, I'm a social creature. We naturally crave companionship and community. We're wired that way. You're NOT supposed to be independent of 'the collective,' and it's very rare to find someone who truly WANTS to be. I'm not even certain where the paradox is here, to be honest.

You've met no one who wishes to be independent of the collective? Well, I guess I'm the first you'll meet.

The paradox is: Your lifelong goal of independence is the greatest thing for you, yet also the worst. To be an individual is to be normal. To wish someone individuality is to integrate them into the collective. To be unique is to just be another person.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not how it works.

This reply made no sense

History tells us otherwise. Unless you want to suggest that the efforts of someone like Rosa Parks are in vain.

Keyword "most"

There is no they. It's WE.

For you, maybe, but not for me. I refuse to be a part of this.

I said morals and rules are set by the group. You said that was absurd, that is was set by the individual. I invited you to create a rule other people would be obliged to follow. I was making a point. YOU as an individual do not create rules that others must adhere to, except in your own personal sphere of influence. Those who chose to be around you follow your rules. Those who don't want to, don't. But your influence on the whole of society is limited, so you as an individual can't go around setting mores. You need influence. Again, proved by history.

I don't speak for everyone, however. If no one is in my group, then it is a group of 1. You're trying to disprove my statements by using the history of humanity as an example. That's probably the worst comparison.

Try the history of innovators. Others groups of 1 who made their own rules, unaccepted at first, but soon had an astronomical influence on the entire world.

Now, I need to figure out how to complete this Jool-5 thing...

[YNM]

I think that independence comes from having freedom. And there's no limit for freedom, bar the freedom of other beings. To make it worth, you need equal division... Or if one will to let the other have it.

Original question: just do it. After all, he's POW, no ?

[xcorps]

...

For you, maybe, but not for me. I refuse to be a part of this...

Did you make the clothes you are wearing? Did you grow the food you eat? Did you build the house you live in? The computer you typed that post from...did you make it? Did you without aid learn to speak, read, and write?

You are not refusing to be a part of it. Not even close.

Edited April 14, 2015 by xcorps