Most have heard the classical paradox of the chicken and the egg. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The same question can apply to the individual and society. Which comes first? To answer the question, a concept of the individual must be established and the origins of society must be explored. Only then can one compare and contrast their roles in relation to the other. Two revolutionary thinkers, Soren Kierkegaard and Bertolt Brecht, will give their arguments of opposition to try to determine whether the power between society and the individual is pulled in one particular direction than the other. In conclusion, an answer will be produced to the question: the chicken, society, or the egg, the individual? The concept of the individual is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability. Th individual is a historical being in that he developes a personality as he grows and circulates within his or her family, peer group, neighborhood and eventually within the society as a whole. He developes in the process patterns of feeling, thinking, and habits. An individual is also a cultural being. Culture includes religion, philosophy, science, technology, art, education, politics, etc within a given society. The concept of the individual emerged, across western society at the end of the middle ages (1200-1400), with the rise and expansion of a new social class: the bourgeoise. During the historical emergence of a new social class, the bourgeoisie, co-developing was a new form of society. The feudal society, which had come to an end, saw the emergence of the hierarchy of social groups, making people dependent on others. On the shoulders of the common man grew an enormous parasit...
... middle of paper ...
...ciety as a whole. It also means that society would no longer be divided into educated and uneducated. The change in ownership would cause the work place to no longer a dog eat dog environment where you win at the expense of others. It is about everyone winning through cooperation and this cooperative behavior would transfer across to other areas of life. There would no longer be inferiors and superiors. A new individuality would emerge because there would be no pressure to conform since no one would have power over you and one would be more of an individual because they would able to fully develop and exercise all their abilities and talents. As well as a new individuality there would be a new belonging. We would no longer feel alienated from society and others. This new belonging would be critical in motivating people to work for the general good of the society.
The economy is the one reason why individualism has not progressed in the 20th century. In the new society, the nation itself owns, manages and distributes all the capital. They also organize and produce all of the nation's goods. The nation's wealth is divided evenly between all their citizens and money does not exist anymore, citizen's are given a certain amount of credit that they can spend anyway they like. But there are some good in having the citizen's managing the economy, for instance, they are able to set the supply and demand curves of every product since there is no more competition between companies. There is no more failed business since there is only one centralized industry also
The individual is the unit on which capitalism is based. Bonds between merchants were based on free competition rather than the need to trade. This liberating system of economy allows the individual to direct his own business. Individualism developed with the gradual transfer of power from large establishments to the individual and his rights and opportunities as a member of society. The importance and power of the individual was not fully realized until ideas were transformed through the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the rise of capitalism. These movements helped Europe realize the latent potential within an individual.
The gap between the rich and the poor is eliminated and everyone has the same wealth to make everything perfect and fair. All human activity goes towards benefiting each other. Private property and all private businesses are eliminated. Instead of working for yourself to make a living for yourself, you are making a living for the country or society that you live in. In document 3: Friedrich Engels says that “ above all, (the government). will have to take control of industry and all branches of production out of the hands of.
Kittay’s work detailing the dependency relationship explains that human rely on each other; Aristotle’s work conveys that human forms household for economical interest; and Marx’s work implied that humans are eventually one classless society with best economical benefits for all. Whether or not being members in community is the best way to live for every human is still debatable, but it is the only choice that humans all made by
Take a minute to relax. Enjoy the lightness, or surprising heaviness, of the paper, the crispness of the ink, and the regularity of the type. There are over four pages in this stack, brimming with the answer to some question, proposed about subjects that are necessarily personal in nature. All of philosophy is personal, but some philosophers may deny this. Discussed here are philosophers that would not be that silly. Two proto-existentialists, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, were keen observers of humanity, and yet their conclusions were different enough to seem contradictory. Discussed here will be Nietzsche’s “preparatory human being” and Kierkegaard’s “knight of faith”. Both are archetypal human beings that exist in accordance to their respective philosopher’s values, and as such, each serve different functions and have different qualities. Both serve the same purpose, though. The free spirit and the knight of faith are both human beings that brace themselves against the implosion of the god concept in western society.
Marx believed that the class system was the main problem and should be demolished. He believed that everyone should be equal and should work together in order to create. In his thoughts in The Communist Manifesto, he tells of all the benefits due to the many changes that will be made in his classless society. Socially everyone will be looked upon as equal, and everyone will contribute to their society. Intellectually, the people will not be selfish and will all come together to combine their ideas. Politically things will be different since there will be no government. Also, religions will be abolished and there will be no higher beings. Economically, property will not be privately owned and everything will be shared by all. In this society, there are many problems and this seems like a great way to bring about change.
Conditionally being free within society from oppressive limitations, or the right to pursue after whatever makes one subjectively happy is human instinct. Equality, Liberty, and alongside the pursuit of happiness goes among with visualizing a place in which the economy, social conditions, and government, are perfect is the interpretation of an immaculate culture. As ideas are formed absorbing conciseness from one person to another, so did the start of forming a society. Slowly human culture began arriving to decisions establishing in one place developing their own food, fabricating a system of letters, and constructing permanent homes creating the first civilizations. The multitude of people living with each other in a more or less ordered
... and what society dictates. To begin understanding this complex problem is the key to individualism and breaking free from societies constraints.
In the unit “The Spirit of Individualism” there are two parts, “Celebrations of the self” and “The Dark side of Individualism” with pieces that present very different perspectives on human nature. “The Dark side of Individualism” portrays human nature as greedy, confused, easily caught up in fame, and addicted to wealth and possessions. In “Celebrations of the Self”, human nature is viewed in a more positive light. The characteristics shown are self reliance, independence, wisdom and selflessness. “The Dark side of Individualism” pieces are written in a more macabre tone, whereas “Celebrations of the Self” pieces have a more positive and uplifting tone to them. The generalizations of human nature are different because of the pieces in “The Dark side of Individualism” and “Celebrations of the Self” have entirely different views on life and human nature.
Ayn Rand's classic story of one man's desire to become an individual in a nameless society presents a compelling refutation of collectivism in all forms. The hero, labeled "Equality 7-2521" by the State, chooses to challenge conventional authority as he learns the joys of experimentation and discovery, the ecstasy of human love, the challenge and fairness of liberty, and the happiness of self-interest. Equality 7-2521 writes three unique phrases in his journal: 1. "My happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to an end. It is the end.", 2. "We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it.", 3. "The word 'We' . . . must never be placed first within man's soul.". These phrases will be discussed individually in the remainder of this essay.
In his work, Who is Man, Abraham J. Heschel embarks on a philosophical and theological inquiry into the nature and role of man. Through analysis of the meaning of being human, Heschel determines eight essential traits of man. Heschel believes that the eight qualities of preciousness, uniqueness, nonfinality, process and events, solitude and solidarity, reciprocity, and sanctity constitute the image of man that defines a human being. Yet Heschel’s eight qualities do not reflect the essential human quality of the realization of mortality. The modes of uniqueness and opportunity, with the additional singular human quality of the realization of mortality, are the most constitutive of human life as uniqueness reflects the fundamental nature of humanity,
Ulrich Beck is a German sociologist who has elaborated a formulation of the theory of reflexive modernization, which is characterized by two theses: risk thesis and individualization thesis. Beck’s thesis in Germany has been understood as a bal-ance of these two theses, but in Anglo-Saxon sociology the risk thesis has been influential . For better understanding of individualization process it’s necessary to explain what is new and specific in this process. The new is that something that earlier in nineteenth century was expected of a few “to lead a life of their own” to-day is demanded by more and more people. The new element is, first, the democ-ratization of the individualization processes and the second also conditions in soci-ety favor or enforces individualization process e.g. like the job market, the need for mobility and training etc. In the past marriage was an institution which was above the individuals, and was to be understood not from below or from individual to above but from above to bellow, but today individuals are forming it . With mod-ernization individuals are setting their demands and dilemmas more and more free. Individuals and society can’t be described as a social conflict, because individuals and society lay claim to each other . The individualization theory is analyzing the political debate in two ways: first, it is creating a reference of frame which allows that the conflicts between individuals and society, to be analyzed from the position of individuals. Second, is showing how the modern society develops further, it’s becoming questionable to suppose that collective units of meaning and action ex-ist . The social factors could be described as: religious, classes, associations and above all, but the in...
The oldest social law of responsibility to oneself has made a comeback in modern times with a twist. Jean-Jacques Rousseau stated, “The oldest of all societies, and the only natural one, is that of the family; yet children remain tied to their father by nature only so long as they need him for their preservation.” (Rousseau). As of now that twist to be explained has expanded into a preservation bubble more so for the individual than one’s own family. The twist is not a new concept, but it is “Gesellschaft” that becomes the dominant cancer that erodes the very ideal of community.
To be a social being is to be human. The very existence of society can be seen as proof that the ter...
Before taking this class, my understanding between each individual and the whole society is that every individuals as the gear are connected together to become a society like a machine. That is, human beings build the society. However, the class gave me bigger view of the relationship between the people and the society. Discussing about the relationship between me and the broader social world is based on how all human beings and the broader social world effect together. Thus, I am going to show my understanding from the class and reading about the interaction between each individual and the whole society.