Individualistic Philosophy.

I invite members thoughts on the topic of whether philosophy should be fundamentally orientated to the self or to society. Is it better conceived of as an intensely personal execise in character/spiritual development, or is its purpose to cure social ills and bring about a better society for others?

...at no point did (the Cynics) attempt to enforce their way of life on the Athenian people as a whole through legislation or the establishment of social institutions, and in this lies their genius.

It's genius to reject making the world better for future generations? Dont buy it.

What would have been their political platform, anyway? I'm sure the average Athenian didnt see the charm of living in a wine jar, I know I dont; nor do I see the charm of ascetism in general. Perhaps a person with a masochistic bent can see it as the path to his private perfection, but it's socially useless.

wormwood wrote: Yet organized poltical activism seems to be best, if not only, way to definitively instigate a universal and abiding change in a societies social practices.

There are the essay, the utopian sketch, the op-ed, the satirical comedy skit, etc.---there are lots of ways for philosophers to get memes out into circulation.

wormwood wrote: For the Cynic, to practice philosophy is to indefatigably challenge all forms of established authority, whilst to practice politics is simply to exercise authority. This is a valuable distinction to make in my mind, and for those who believe otherwise i would simply refer them to the sad legacy of Karl Marx.

To challenge all forms of authority at once, to long for total revolution, is unnecessarily destructive. Not everything has to be made new, just the traditions that stand in the way of greater freedom, greater equality, greater variety, and greater happiness throughout all human relationships.

The counter-example to the Marxist state would be democratic politics, dont you think? Democratic politics is how authority can be shared and how the terms of communal living can be established. So to say in 2010 that politics is simply the exercise of authority as the Cynics did seems wrong.

Like science, I'm not sure philosophy is an activity that can be done individually and still be meaningful. But I still don't think it needs to have anything to do with directly curing society's ills.

I see philosophy's purpose as the elimination of false arguments (and - occasionally - false propositions). If people can use that toward social or personal benefit, well... good for them.

Is it better conceived of as an intensely personal execise in character/spiritual development, or is its purpose to cure social ills and bring about a better society for others?

Along the same lines as bjza, it seems to me that the proposition in the OP presents a false choice because the two are not the only options.

either 1. intensely personal
or 2. cure social ills

If not 1 then 2. If not 2 then 1.

How about neither, or 1 and 2?

>4 richardbsmith:. Its true the topic has been presented in a terribly stark and simplisitic form. I have given a black and white dichotomy and asked you to chose between one or the other, so naturally the question arises, 'well why not both?'.
I dont deny that there can be both. And yet it seems to me that that perfect middle ground is relatively rare to find and that most philosophers seem to lean to one or the other side of the issue. What particularly facinates me is those philosophers who quit leaning and fall entirely into the realm of complete individualism, leaving all consideration of engaging in greater social issues far behind them.
In this camp one seems to find a great many Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman philosophers. THere is Heraclitus, Diogenes of Sinope, Epicurus and Epictetus the Stoic. Then, turning to the modern period, there is Max Stirner, and Nietzsche, the Marquis De Sade, Thoreau, and to a certain extent Kierkirgaard.
It is this type of radical individualism, or in the case of Nietzsche, Stirner and De Sade one could even say unabashed 'Egoism', that i wish to discuss not least because by turning their backs on society these individuals seem to provoke its wrath and resentment. They seem, in short, to call upon themselves the charge of 'selfishness', and again in the case of Nietzsche, Stirner and Sade, even that of representing 'evil' and 'criminality'... And yet is there not another, counter morality at work here? are not these philosophers in many ways MORE moral than those who entangle themselves in philosophical movements such as Utiliarianism and Communism which so blithely take on the authority of acting for the 'greater good' and who's ulitmate legacy is so terribly disappointing. They at least have fully grasped the rarest of virtues, 'minding one's own business'.

...i will quickly address some points made by semckibbin arising from a seperate thread where i advocated an invidualisitic philosophy and used the Ancient Cynics as my example

'What would have been their political platform?'

this question misses the entire point of my previous post, the Cynics didnt have a political platform end of story.

'There are the essay, the utopian sketch, the op-ed, the satirical comedy skit....'

And these were precisely the tools used by the Cynics themselves, particularly the utopian sketch and the comedy skit. The point was simply that they didnt engage in politics to change social practices. Compare this with modern philosopical movements such as Marxism and Utiliarianism/Liberalism which are primarily politically orientated. WHen Utitilarians sought to bring about the 'greatest happiness for the greatest number' in 19th C England they did not rely purely on op-ed pieces or literary essays, they siezed the reins of government and instituted an array of govermnet run schools, prisons, hospitals, asylums and police stations. It would have better, in my mind, if they had had simply written satrical comedy skits instead

'The counter-example to the Marxist state would be democratic politics, dont you think? Democratic politics is how authority can be shared and how the terms of communal living can be established.'

THis 'democratic politics' has never existed and will never exist, its an idealistic pipedream. Just how are you going to wrestle authority away from the well-entrenched and well-resourced state bureacracies that run our day to day lives?

My question goes even beyond there being more than the two offered choices.

While I confess to being not much of a philosopher, philosophy itself has never seemed to me to have a purpose of developing or improving of either the individual or society. Except perhaps with ethics, and even in that discipline, understanding seems the orientation more than improvement.

Maybe I am wrong in this.

>.7.

The primary purpose of philosophy in the post-Socratic period in Ancient Greece and Rome was definitely to train the individual in the 'art of life' Epictetus. Understanding was important, but it was an understanding rooted in a daily practice of learning how to live. I quote from Pierre Hadot a Professor of the History of Philosophy who writes that at this time 'Theory is never considered an end in itself; it is clearly and decidedly put in the service of practice'. see Philosophy as a Way of Life. LEarning to live and to enjoy life, that was the purpose of Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy.


THe assumption that philosophy could be entirely about mental processes, about talking and thinking in a technical and jargon ridden language is the result of Christianity which placed philosophy in service of theology. If philosophy sought to teach the invidual how to live well in the present moment, theology turned men's attention to the hereafter, to the world to come, theology was also confined to the monastries and the universities, philosophy thereby was torn out of streets and placed in the ivory tower in which it still, alas, smugly squats.

I guess if philosophy is the art of learning to live and to enjoy life, then I would have to say that "intensely personal execise in character/spiritual development" is the better choice.

Philosophy is the love of knowledge. As truth touches on what is true. Philosophy is not necessarily for utilitarian ends. The experience of knowing and loving truth is the reward for seeking it.

Of course, acknowledging the above statement would depend on what philosophy you may hold. And, of course no good rationalist, utilitarian, capitalist, Marxist, social liberal may agree with me.

Again, a person may attempt to "use" philosophy, but I am sure they will soon find it empty as it provides, not what they may seek.

Philosophy requires an open mind, and when it comes up against the tough questions contrary to personal wishes, it requires a willing heart, it requires the courage to face prejudice and experience abstractions.

This is great fun.

...the Cynics didnt have a political platform end of story. Sure. But I was trying a little thought experiment to try and imagine what their political program would have been like if it had been something as simple as a Cynic saying, Do as I do. I didnt see it having much sway in the marketplace of ideas. Sorry that I went about making my point in an obscure way.

And these were precisely the tools used by the Cynics themselves, particularly the utopian sketch and the comedy skit. The point was simply that they didnt engage in politics to change social practices.

Well, the original argument started when you disagreed with my suggestion that philosophers should try to have social utility. Instigating social change obviously would have social utility. So my point in #2 above was that methods like the utopian sketch are used to instigate social change without the philosopher directly involving himself in "organized political activism" (which you had previously said was the only way to instigate social change). When you say in the quote above that the Cynics didnt engage in politics are you still maintaining they werent trying to instigate social change at all with their skits and utopias?

It seems to me that the notion of exposing prejudice has to be accompanied by the thought of let's change things, let's DO something. Otherwise, what would be the point of exposing prejudice? And in this instance what was the point of the Cynics utopias and skits?

This 'democratic politics' has never existed and will never exist, its an idealistic pipedream. Just how are you going to wrestle authority away from the well-entrenched and well-resourced state bureacracies that run our day to day lives?

It seems we have different conceptions of what democratic politics are. Certainly democratic politics have accomplished a lot in America. We have child labor laws, 40-hr work weeks, consumer safety laws, the expansion of sufferage. And since this is a constitutional democracy where parts of the government have oversight of other parts (that whole 3 branches of govt thing) there are already mechanisms in place to limit authority of any single part. Im not quite sure of how the bureaucracy is in charge since they merely implement laws our representatives passed and those laws can be, and are, constantly amended.

The assumption that philosophy could be entirely about mental processes, about talking and thinking in a technical and jargon ridden language is the result of Christianity which placed philosophy in service of theology.

I dont follow what you're saying. Who is assuming that philosophy is entirely about mental processes? Why is that a particularly Christian viewpoint? What does jargon riddled language specifically have to do with Christian theology? (It would seem even atheists have jargon.)

Im glad your enjoying yourself semckibben :)
If you dont mind i think i will be a little selective in my replies to your comments, just because i would like, as much as possible, for this thread to remain on topic.
So i would like to return to our debate on whether philosophers should try to have social utility and where the Ancient Cynics stood on this point.
Like so much in philosophy, ulitimately we are dealing with a complex position full of subtly and a touch of paradox rather than a simple 'no'/'yes' answer.
The Cynics stood outside of politics, that much can be said for certain. As philosophers they could be found in the marketplaces of Athens and Romans, engaging in heated philosophical debate, exposing prejudices as well as ridiculing and satirzing the customs and habits of the people who passed by. Did they do this in order to wake society from its slumber?, to bring about a more enlightened and rationalistic social order, and thus instigate social change for the better? It may seem on the surface that yes this has to be the case, otherwise why bother?
However, ulitmately i dont think they were trying to change the social order for the better. This can be seen in the fact that they clearly werent interested in gaining converts to their 'cause'. (there is a famous story where Diogenes was continutally beaten away with a stick by Antisthenes when he tried to become his disciple). This is because the Cynics recognized that not everyone can or should become a Cynic, not everyone has it in them. Unlike Christians, who believe that any person can (and should) become a Christian if only exposed to the word of God (therefore making the vision of a perfect Christian society a potential reality), one had to earn the right to be a Cynic either that or be born to it naturally.
It is true, as i have said, that there is evidence of Cynics producing utopian sketches in which the perfect Cynic society is described. Nevertheless, the Cynics were clearminded enough (again unlike Christians) to acknowledge that no such society could ever exist, such sketches remained 'utopian', that is, out of reach.
Furthermore the Cynics didnt believe that a Cynic society could exist because they rejected all social customs in favour of a life lived according to nature. As, in their view, life within society is by its very definition distinct from a life according to nature (society being ruled by inherited customs and tradition), then there could be no Cynic society, there could only be Cynics.

(oh, and i didnt say organized political activism was the only way to bring about social change, i said it might seem to many that it is)

wormwood wrote: i would like, as much as possible, for this thread to remain on topic

Fair enough, although I was merely pursuing some curious statements you made.

Is (Philosophy) better conceived of as an intensely personal execise in character/spiritual development, or is its purpose to cure social ills and bring about a better society for others?

I dont know how to separate man from his socialization. We are socialized through and through because of language. Without language thought itself would be impossible. Moreover, if one also rejects the idea of supernatural, unchanging reality, then it seems to me there should be a realization that all we have is each other; and therefore we should try to further freedom, opportunity, diversity, equality and happiness for all humans. It is what we owe each other. Philosophers can help achieve this utopia (and utopias are the expression of the beliefs and hopes that we hold in highest esteem). A philosopher can provide arguments in support of political agendas to achieve those goals, she can tell intellectual histories to point out the sheer contingency of our beliefs and make change seem less radical, she can point out the prejudices that exist in received traditions and offer recommendations for change, and so on.

At the same time, if someone wants to pursue private perfection and not harm anybody in her pursuit, I am not going to stop her, its part of the diversity we should treasure. I simply dont think she would be fulfilling her responsibility to others (family, friends, tribe, state or whatever social group you want to posit).

In regards to the issue of socialization; humans are born in social groups and are socialized, that's indisputable. At a certain point however we all start to think for ourselves, to question, and to rebel, at least i hope we all do, perhaps there are people who blindly obey everything theyve been taught, you certainly couldnt call these people philosophers though.
Philosophy, as ive said, is what happends when we question our socialization, the best example of this stands at the heart of Western philsophy, Socrates. Socrates questioned and critized social norms, thats what makes Socrates great, that's what made him the 'gadfly of Athens', that's what made him a philosopher.
Moving onto your second point, which is much more interesting. I also absolutely reject a supernatural unchanging reality, i dont see how or why, however, that should lead me to the conclusion that it is my personal responsibility to 'further freedom, opportunity, diversity, equality and happiness for all humans'. First of all, that's impossible, its as unreal an ideal as that of bringing about a 'heaven on earth'. Indeed it seems like just another version of this Christian ideal.
You write at the end of your post that an individualistic philosopher would fail to fulfil his reponsibility's to others, to 'family, friends, tribe, state or whatever social group you want to posit)'. THe idea of responsibility to others however, is just that, an idea and as such should be left to individuals to act upon or disregard as they will, according to their circumstances and even according to their inclination (ideas are human inventions which have no more power or legitimacy than that which humans grant them, they are not our masters). If your saying that this is an idea that holds as a law over and above individuals and their particular situation then you are, im afriad to say, advocating a form of supernatural unchanging reality. If my friends betray me, if my family turns their back on me, if the state brands me as a criminal, what responsibility should i bear towards them, where is my obligation to them? Surely the extent of each individual's obligations are to be determined in terms of their own judgements. Are you truely assuming that men should act as you see fit, that is, according to your particular ideas? if so please dont ever enter into politics

philosophy and politics really don't get along that well. Philosophers are just too idealistic, they see how things should work, but almost never how they actually do. Truly great philosophical ideas get usually just distorted when mixed with politics. In the end some brutal ideology is seen as the original philosophy and the thinkers are being blamed for killing millions of people.

I also absolutely reject a supernatural unchanging reality, i dont see how or why, however, that should lead me to the conclusion that it is my personal responsibility to 'further freedom, opportunity, diversity, equality and happiness for all humans'. First of all, that's impossible, its as unreal an ideal as that of bringing about a 'heaven on earth'

On the contrary, i think furthering freedom, etc., is very possible as it is incremental, doesnt have a defined final goal and isnt dependent upon a deity swooping in to save everyone. It merely advocates growth and only requires humans to accomplish it. Moreover, human history demonstrates that things like freedom can increase and grow, history shows it is not impossible. Of course, the items I listed are what appear good to us now, based on our history and what we believe our needs to be, and it is very likely our descendants 500 years from now would have a very different list.

To answer why you should (after realizing that all there is for humans to live for is each other) try to make the human condition better as I suggest, I can offer the argument that more freedom, equality, diversity, and happiness would result in a better society than the existing one and therefore would be worth your effort.

THe idea of responsibility to others however, is just that, an idea and as such should be left to individuals to act upon or disregard as they will, according to their circumstances and even according to their inclination (ideas are human inventions which have no more power or legitimacy than that which humans grant them, they are not our masters). If your saying that this is an idea that holds as a law over and above individuals and their particular situation then you are, im afriad to say, advocating a form of supernatural unchanging reality.

Responsibility to others is not just a random idea left to individuals to implement as each sees fit. Responsibility to others is an idea that has developed through a process of applying rational thought to resolve conflicts between the various actual human commitments and has resulted in a network of successful social institutions and practices. The process itself helps explain why it should bind us as a norm. For example, the common law, developed over centuries and changing still, is a binding expression of the expectations we have for communal living, and for our responsibilities to others.

Surely the extent of each individual's obligations are to be determined in terms of their own judgements.

Well, that’s the issue being debated, and you’re going to have to do better to back up your view than a ‘surely’ because your claim is not at all sure.

"Responsibility to others is an idea that has developed through a process of applying rational thought to resolve conflicts between the various actual human commitments and has resulted in a network of successful social institutions and practices."

'Responsibility to others' is certainly to be found in a network of social institutions and practices. Whether or not they are 'successful', well that can be debated. 'Successful' according to who? The whole sordid tale of Western Colonialism was predicated on the idea of responsibility to others. How did white imperialists justiify the invasion and occupation of the territory of tribal peoples around the globe. How? in the name of 'their own good' thats how, it was the white man's burden to take care of those who couldnt take care of themselves (according to the white perspective that is), it was their... responsibility. Have a look at the actual history of Colonialism and you will see that it was all defined in terms of altruisitc goals, for the good of others. What other horrendous events have taken place in human history under the banner of 'the good of others'. Plenty, the burning of witches, (it was the responsibility of the Church to help the souls of these 'others' reach heaven), the rise of the USSR (it was the responsibility of the Soviet Union to help others become more 'free' and 'happy' under a communist system), and on and on it goes. So have a close look at social institutions and practices which have preached the doctine of 'the good of others', you'll find a lot of immorality taking place under a veneer of morality. Ye gods, even the Iraq war was defined as a 'humanitarian interrvention', to help the poor Iraque people, and the public bought it!

You give the example of the common law to prove your point. Is that the common law which has outlawed the possession of marijuana? A decision which has resulted in the needless imprisonment of countless people young and old (with little to no rational proof to back its existence), which has proved a boon for organized crime resulting in the needless deaths of hundreds of people. THat common law? oh yes what a boon to humanity that law was. Oh but it was done for our own good you know, for the good of society that is. that makes it alright i suppose?

Individuality is the great achievement of civilization. "Socialization" -- the process a person undergoes to adapt in society, to flourish in society -- is not necessarily a contrary notion to the achievement of individual excellence. Since we are social animals, the two go hand in hand, rather like a dialectical dance.

Just as excellence is achieved, personally, through the balance of passions via reason (see Aristotle, Santayana), society achieves some semblance of progress in balancing the demands of its members. It is worth noting that the two great revolutionary traditions of modern times were born in the Enlightenment. The American Revolution grew out of English debate and the Scottish Enlightenment, and was an experiment in separating powers and securing for individuals extensive liberty through a rule of law. The French Revolution experimented with breaking down all traditional notions of limits, aggrandizing the state in a Romantic revival that affected numerous later movements, like socialism, Progressivism, fascism, and the like.

Philosophers have played their parts in both movements. I lean towards the Locke/Smith wing of liberty-as-a-limit-to-government rather than the Rousseau/Marx wing of liberty-as-deriving-from-participation-in-the-group. I find the socialist/fascist wing of state worship to be an abomination. Like Thomas Jefferson, I tend to read Plato's Republic and cringe.

Unless I accept an esoteric reading that the book was always really only about the soul!

This being said, philosophy is not a pursuit likely to be taken up as a broad social movement. Most people make do with civilization's ancient bastard child, religion, and civilization's most tragi-comic institution, the polity. Philosophy is something individuals take up, and engage in within small groups (schools, professions, journals, webrings). I love modern philosophy, with its fine distinctions and careful arguments and clever gambits. But, frankly, the Hellenistic view of philosophy as therapy for the soul has a deeper pull, and has the additional advantage of less easily being adopted for totalitarian purposes.

Unless, of course, one accepts totalitarian and anti-individualist premises, and the whole thing is off to the madhouse.

'I find the socialist/fascist wing of state worship to be an abomination. Like Thomas Jefferson, I tend to read Plato's Republic and cringe.'

With this i completely agree.... however....

'society achieves some semblance of progress in balancing the demands of its members.'

...with this kind of statement im much more wary. But this is not necessarily because i disagree with the truth of it, more that i try to avoid all pronouncements on what society actually IS. This is for two reasons. First because society is an incredibly complicated creature which can not be summeraized neatly in a sentence or two. It would take tomes and tomes to describe a society in action and by the time the exercise would have finished that society would have become something else. I have come to this conclusion after years of study of history and sociology, two disciplines that set out to precisely undertake this herculean task. For when you come down to it, all historians and sociologists are selective, they have to be to say anything at all. Most, if not all, leap from this realm of specificity into the realm of generalizations, and often good and interesting and valuable generalizations at that. But whilst valuing these generalizations one must remain always acutely aware of this selectivity, this interpretation, to be a good historian and/or sociologist, otherwise you gain rigidity, emotional investments, moral agendas, deafness, all bad traits for any intellectual to have acquired.
The second reason is that i am quite conscious of what happens to one's thoughts after their utterrance, and what is done with them, by others. I have Karl Marx firmly in my minds eye here. Though he brought it upon himself (by being so absolute in his convictions of what society should be like), nevertheless it is disgusting what was done with his thought, his books, after he was dead... Jesus could be mentioned here as well. Pronouncments on politics and society enter the world, fall from your pen, into the clumsy hands of politicians who use it to beat the heads in of others.

wirkman wrote Individuality is the great achievement of civilization.

Not science? Not the phonetic alphabet? Not agriculture? Not democracy? Not the invention of the gods? I would be interested to hear the argument why individuality comes out on top as bestest.

wirkman wrote But, frankly, the Hellenistic view of philosophy as therapy for the soul has a deeper pull

There are other things philosophy can be---like "its time held in thought"---that have their pull on others.

Reply to wormwood

I withdraw the word "successful". I stand by the rest of what I wrote.

I would love to hear your defense of an individualistic philosophy and the philosopher's non-place in society; and where "the rarest of virtues, minding our own business" stands in relation to "responsibility to others" in the ethical hierarchy and why it stands so.

'I withdraw the word "successful". I stand by the rest of what I wrote.'

It seemed to me that the whole point of your last argument was to paint the existence of social institutions and practices which set out to promote 'the good of others' in a positive light. If you withdraw the word 'successful' then you are withdrawing the claim that this phenomenon is to be considered purely in a positive light (which i have shown is an argument that does not stand up to actual historical or sociological analysis). If you withdraw that, but still 'stand by' what you argued, you are really 'standing by' nothing at all.

Please clarify what exactly it is that you 'stand by'

If you wish to hear my defence of an individualistic philosophy, i invite you to reread the points ive already made here in this thread.

It seemed to me that the whole point of your last argument was to paint the existence of social institutions and practices which set out to promote 'the good of others' in a positive light.

Huh. That's an interesting interpretation, but it wasnt my point in #16 at all.

My point in #16 was much more narrow; it was to counter your claim that "THe idea of responsibility to others however, is just that, an idea and as such should be left to individuals to act upon or disregard as they will, according to their circumstances and even according to their inclination..." My point, and what I stand by, was to show that responsibilities to others was embodied in social institutions which grew out of a historical process, a process that gives those institutions normative force. So responsibility to others has much more authority than an idea, it is woven into the fabric of communal life.

Now to turn to your interpretation. I never claimed it is what the social institutions "set out" to do, or what the thugs and kleptocrats claim that the institution would be doing, that has normative force. I am talking about a historical process that takes results into account, a process that takes into account the problems that are caused by the institution---a process that happily ended up with long standing institutions that dont burn witches, for example.

If you wish to hear my defence of an individualistic philosophy, i invite you to reread the points ive already made here in this thread

I took that advice long before it was given, but I didnt read anything positive about individualistic philosophy. I read "LEarning to live and to enjoy life, that was the purpose of Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy." And I was also told "Philosophy, as ive said, is what happends when we question our socialization..." but no backup arguments.

To take the specific example of the Cynic, it seems to me someone is a Cynic because he just wants to throw peanuts from the gallery and not participate in the hard work of trying to make things better. The reasons why are perhaps threefold: 1. He's lazy, 2. He likes being a pain in the ass, and 3. He doesnt want any blame when things go awry. I could be wrong.

I wonder if Diogenes would have used a computer and the Internet?

Did Diogenes's lamp work? I think I need to know that before I can even begin to think about whether he would use the world wide web. He might have asked Alexander for a good computer repair service; I wonder.

Robert

C'mon, Diogenes would most certainly have created a blog. "Notes from inside a wine jar" or something like that.

He and Plato together.

#1

In all of our focus in the West on "individualism" we have lost the concept of "the person" or as Kierkegaard said "the Single One". Martin Buber writes in his book Between Man and Man that true community can only be realized "to the extent to which the Single Ones become real out of whose responsible life the body politic is renewed."

When I finally got that citation to click I made sense of it in my terms, but I immediately suspected that various thinkers reflecting on it could come up with various contradictory takes. I should probably read Buber and see it in context. It strikes me as congruent with the categorical imperative.

Robert

(I'm a newbie and this is my first post.) In a book I'm reading now by Amartya Sen called "The Idea of Justice", he talks about the capability approach, where real freedom is assessed so that the advantages and disadvantages the person can be determined. Critics of the approach have disagreed with being concerned about just the person, which is called methodological individualism, and they instead want the focus to be directed to the society the individuals are in. Sen argues that the thoughts, decisions, and actions of the individual are not independent of the society they are in. When considering the capabilities of the individual, it is already a given that they are dependent on the influences of society as well.

27 Hi, picklesan. Please contrast "individualism" with "the Single One". How does "individualism" lose the concept of "the person"?

I agree with Mr. Durick in that if we havent read Buber it is really hard when given a one sentence quote to figure out what Buber was getting at.

Message 22>

'So responsibility to others has much more authority than an idea, it is woven into the fabric of communal life. '

It is still an idea. The idea of God was woven into the fabric of the communal life of Western mediaeval society. That is, until freethinkers challenged the idea that belief in GOd should be a norm imposed on all by pain of death. They invariably suffered (sometimes with their lives) in challenging this idea because the idea had social authority, but they challenged it all the same, and it was revealed, that yes, God was just an idea.
So too with duty, obligation, responsibility, charity, goodness, kindness, all ideas. Good ideas sometimes, yes, bad ideas sometimes too, yes. No child is born with the idea of charity and responsibility and obligation to others, thats something he learns from others, sometimes quite imperfectly (the selfishness of children is renown). We learn these ideas, they are drummed into us, but we can challenge them, we can say 'no, i dont subscribe to that idea any more', and we do. I dont doubt that the idea of 'responsibility to others' has social authority behind it, that it has normative force. That however doesnt mean it cant be challenged and rejected, the price of that rejection may be social exclusion, jail, sometimes death, but it can be done none the less. When an idea has become firmly entrenched in a society it becomes part of its moral code, it takes on the the self-evident rightness of a Moral Principle. No doubt the idea of responsibility to others is a Moral Principle. Moral Principles are all well and good, they are not to be rejected outright, however it should not be forgotten that they are at heart still just ideas (about what should be right and what wrong), that ideas change through history (witness the various moral codes of societies), that they also change through peoples lifespans (witness the change in peoples morality through there lifetime), in short that no idea is fixed, nor should be fixed. If you fix an idea then it takes on a power over and above you, it rules you, it tells YOU what to do. If you blindly follow a fixed Moral Principle without regard to how it affects you then you are either a blind fanactic or an idiot. Im reminded of the old philosophical thought game. If you were starving would you steal bread for your children. Only an idiot (or a fanatic for the moral code of do not Steal)would say no. Well, if you were starving would you steal bread for yourself? again, same conclusion.
What YOU need, what YOUR circumstances are should determine to what extent you obey fixed moral Principles.

Is this moving away from a discussion whether philosophy is primarily and properly focused on individual development or on societal develoment, toward a discussion of pure ethics?

When an idea has become firmly entrenched in a society it becomes part of its moral code, it takes on the the self-evident rightness of a Moral Principle. No doubt the idea of responsibility to others is a Moral Principle....If you fix an idea then it takes on a power over and above you, it rules you, it tells YOU what to do.

I reject the imputation of 'fixed moral principles' out of the arrangements humans have worked out in the course of their actual dealings with each other. It's a jump we can do without. As you rightly point out, these arrangements are brought about by contingent circumstances that occur at certain points in history to solve contingent human problems. Recognition of contingency, that things could be different than they are, should prevent the formation of a belief in fixed, unchanging statuses. As I said above in #13, one of the jobs of the philosopher would be to point to the very contingency of the social milieu in which the social practice arose.

Why do people posit fixed moral principles? I would speculate that it's because people want to escape the conflict inherent in communal living. By having unchallengeable premises they want to end what seem to them to be interminable arguments. They are impatient and want to solve their problems now. By reducing things to rule people want to avoid the hard work of moral deliberation. And perhaps Rorty is right, it may be because some people have a masochistic urge to abase themselves before something non-human like a moral principle.

What YOU need, what YOUR circumstances are should determine to what extent you obey fixed moral Principles.

First, I reject that there are such things as 'fixed moral principles' so to me the statement is without content.

However, if I substitute 'normative social practices' for 'fixed moral principles' then the question has content. Then I would still disagree with the statement because what the individual should do should be what she can justify to her peers against this background of shared social practice, shared purposes and community needs. Her action should not be based on simply her needs. If she would be unable to convince her peers, the community of language users, then she should suffer the consequences. If she can convince her peers then the social practice gets altered to include this special situation---establish a precedent, so to speak.

Please read closer in the future. You spend a good deal of time attacking my apparant support of fixed moral principles. You obviously are only reading what you wish to read, what do you think my whole post was about? I'll repeat myself... 'no idea is fixed, nor should be fixed.'
I find it laughable that you reject my language as 'without content' only to reformulate in your own words to describe, basically, the same thing, the normative code of morality ('normative social practices', yeeesh). Your last statement is less laughable more worrying.
'what the individual should do should be what she can justify to her peers against this background of shared social practice'
'Her action should not be based on simply her needs. If she would be unable to convince her peers, the community of language users, then she should suffer the consequences.'
This type of formulation implies that no individual's actions are justified unless they first believe that they will garner the support of public opinion. It would suppose that before you do anythign you would have to first consider, 'how will my peers judge my actions'. First this is far from realistic (there is tendency in your thought to make generalized statements like this without considering how people actually live in actual society). How many people do this, more importantly...do you do this? Individual's act, more often then not they act without reflecting. If we had to continually reflect before acting then there would be no action as we would have to interminably ponder the possible consequences (which are always multiple). Second it completely ignores the very real social fact that no matter how we act, society will make its own judgements, and enforce them. Take the example of witchcraft again. It was entirely possible that an individual, any individual, might live a sober, placid life, and still be accused of witchcraft. It depended largely, though not entirely, on the judgements of others. Half the people caught up in the witchcraft mania at Salem had done nothing noticably nefarious, let alone worship the devil. So in the middle ages if a witch could not convince others she was not a witch, she should suffer the consequences? Take any situation of mob violence, is it then justified, during the Terror in the French Revolution, if an aristocrat could not rationally convince others that he was not an enemy of the people and be behedaded, then he should suffer the consequences... on and on we could go.

I find it laughable that you reject my language as 'without content' only to reformulate in your own words to describe, basically, the same thing, the normative code of morality ('normative social practices', yeeesh).

I DO NOT think a normative social practice is the same thing as a fixed moral principle. You tell a little story about the progression from normative social practice to moral principle to fixed moral principle that I think is false. That was the point of the first half of my answer in #33 "I reject the imputation of 'fixed moral principles' out of the arrangements humans have worked out in the course of their actual dealings with each other." And I go on to explain why.

BTW, saying Yeeesh is not an argument.

It would suppose that before you do anythign you would have to first consider, 'how will my peers judge my actions'. First this is far from realistic (there is tendency in your thought to make generalized statements like this without considering how people actually live in actual society). How many people do this, more importantly...do you do this?

Before a person makes a moral decision, (and I didnt think we were talking about any decision like whether I should post on the internet or take a walk instead) she definitely should think of how her peers would judge it. If I am thinking about leaving my husband there are other things to consider than my needs; for instance the effect on my children and how my friends and family will react. Having conversations with those people will aid me in my moral deliberation. That's how I make moral decisions, I didnt realize there was something perverse about it.

you seem to miss the point once again semckibben. Let me remind you of it. I argued that ideas are not our masters, rather, if we only would recognize it, we are the masters of our ideas. As such any idea can be rejected, modified, adapted, to our circumstances and our needs. I included in this all our moral ideas, including reponsibility to others, charity, benevolence.
You argued that 'reponsibility to others' was not just an idea but was 'woven' into the fabric of a socieities 'communal life'. I countered that regardless of how 'woven' an idea (or fixed, as was my terminology), an idea remains an idea and an individual, if they have the audacity and bravery to do so, can reject and modify any idea to suit their needs. Then you went off on a strange tangent focusing on my use of the word 'fixed' to describe how it appears that certain ideas are 'woven' into society and thus have an unshakable authority, when clearly my whole point was that no idea, so matter how authoriative, is fixed, including moral ideas (or 'normative social practices' for that matter ). I wont repeat all of this again, if you dont get it, then i'll just leave it at that. (i will say that i find strange your objection to the word 'fixed' but your happiness to use the phrase 'woven into the fabric', when clearly these are metaphors for the same phenonmenon)

My objection to your idea that all moral ideas need delibration and consideration of ones social peers still stands in my eyes. To delibrate sufficiently upon all the possible reactions others would have in regards to a decision like 'leaving your husband', would still be impossible. As a result the outcome could only be one thing, no action at all, as the risk of possibly upsetting a number of people in your social network could never be discounted. And the weighing that would have to be done to accuratly move forward would also be impossible (ie how to weigh the impact on your children against say the happiness of your friends and family, where is a scale that can do that accuratly? there is no scale).

This has continued to be quite entertaining. The first two quotes are simply clarifying some misunderstandings we have, the last two quotes I hope open the door to new dialogue.

clearly my whole point was that no idea, so matter how authoriative, is fixed, including moral ideas

I completely understand your point. I agree with it and have all along. But it was confusing when you wrote "What YOU need, what YOUR circumstances are should determine to what extent you obey fixed moral Principles" as if there were such things as fixed moral principles. So I'm clear I associate "fixed moral principles" with the thought that they are supposed to apply to all men, in all societies, for all time. The contrast I make with social practices is that a social practice only applies to a certain society at a certain time. Social practices and institutions are plastic and always changing to keep up with man's changing purposes and problems.

(i will say that i find strange your objection to the word 'fixed' but your happiness to use the phrase 'woven into the fabric', when clearly these are metaphors for the same phenonmenon)

Clearly the same phenomenon? I can see how your interpreting "woven into" as meaning "fixed" would cause some confusion. How I meant "Responsibilities to others ... is woven into the fabric of communal life", is (to combine it with the previous sentence in #22) that responsibilities to to others is embodied in social institutions that are an integral part of communal life, how things are done. It seems to me that "fixed" is used to mean "settled, firm, unmovable" and we both agree that communal life is not settled, firm or unmovable, we agree that it changes.

Individual's act, more often then not they act without reflecting..... To delibrate sufficiently upon all the possible reactions others would have... would still be impossible. As a result the outcome could only be one thing, no action at all, as the risk of possibly upsetting a number of people in your social network could never be discounted.

Who said anything about requiring complete agreement among her peers before she acts? I said she should think about her peers and how to justify her actions to them---and even talk to some of them. If she cant justify something to her peers she shouldnt do it.

And the weighing that would have to be done to accuratly move forward would also be impossible (ie how to weigh the impact on your children against say the happiness of your friends and family, where is a scale that can do that accuratly? there is no scale).

So nobody should consider those things because there isnt an accurate scale? Really? It seems to me the same objection would apply to your original actor considering only her needs and her circumstances. Maybe you could explain to me how you think moral deliberation works.

'I associate "fixed moral principles" with the thought that they are supposed to apply to all men, in all societies, for all time'

I was definitely not advocating anything like that at all, in fact, the exact opposite. So we definitely do have a misunderstanding.
I believe ideas can become fixed in peoples minds, it happens all the time, but that at any time, one can sieze upon and realize their contingent nature and adapt them to ones one needs and circumstances.
I'll give an example of what im talking about if it will further clarify.
Take the early Christian martyrs during the Roman persecution. All of these people died for an idea, they sacrificed themselves for an idea. There is the tale of Perpetua, who came from a wealthy family, who had a husband and child whom she dearly loved, but who was arrested for her faith and placed in prison. While in prison she was removed from the ease and comfort she was so used to, cut off from the husband and child and family she loved. Her father came many times to plead and remonstrate with her to renounce her faith, but she refused, and died in the ampitheatre.
Now at any point Perpetua could of simply renounced her faith and rejoined her family. THis is what would of happened if she had appreciate that ideas need not rule over us, that they are there for us to use rather for them to use us. Perpetua died for an idea and need not have, she was a fanatic.

Yet she didn't kill for an idea.

No....it was worse than that. Perpetua thought so little of herself, and so little of her friends, family and children, so little of LIFE, that she LET herself be killed for an idea.

How tangible must the idea be for it to become worth dying over?
Is it impossible for there to be an idea worth dying over?

no idea is worth dying for. also, as it was pointed out, no idea is worth killing for either

The idea of freedom.
The idea of country.
The idea of family.

... all not only not worth dying for, but are actively nefarious. THe idea of freedom was seized upon as a mask for the bogus Iraq war, the idea of country was the force behind the Nazi Third Reich, the idea of family behind every effort in the last 30 years to stifle freedom of artistic expression.
Let me be clear here however, MY family is dear to me, and MY freedom (the freedom that i cultivate in my day to day life), it is valued highly. But this is distinct from the IDEA of Family and Freedom, there is nothing abstract about them, on contrary they are dear to me precisely because they are part of my unique experiences.

Non tangible ideas then are OK to die for, or to kill for?

The only non tangible ideas are those intimately immediate to the individual?

Let me be clear here however, MY family is dear to me, and MY freedom (the freedom that i cultivate in my day to day life), it is valued highly. But this is distinct from the IDEA of Family and Freedom, there is nothing abstract about them, on contrary they are dear to me precisely because they are part of my unique experiences.


Dookie, dookie, dookie.

Tell me at what level anything turns into an abstraction. I haven't seen my roommate in 12 hours. Is he now an abstraction?

Wittgenstein, if I recall correctly, once castigated a friend who was sitting in a hospital bed. When Wittgenstein asked his friend how he was feeling, the friend replied that he felt (a paraphrase) like a dog that had been run over by a tram. Wittgenstein replied that his friend had just lied as he had no idea how a dog that had just been run over by a tram might feel. Follow this to its logical conclusion and one sees that life ends in little more than abstraction.

The suffering of anyone other than yourself can never be anything other than an abstraction. Be they your "friends" or "your family." Your immediacy exists only in your mind. You have no direct or immediate entry into the feelings of anyone else. You have no immediate experience of your past suffering. You have only memory, which is only one more filter applied between your mind and the passing world.

You have no direct or immediate entry into the feelings of anyone else.

If somebody tells me in English, "I have a sharp pain in my chest and it hurts me terribly" wouldnt that be an immediate entry into her feelings, into how things seemed to her? And if not, why not?

Hey, wormwood. I am still unsure of how you think moral deliberation works. Please fill me in.

Now at any point Perpetua could of simply renounced her faith and rejoined her family.

Maybe being part of a community that would die for their religious beliefs was more important to her than being with her family. Sounds like she had a tough moral choice.

Moral delibrartion is entirely up to the individual's needs and circumstances. I dont believe in prescribing in the abstract how moral delibration is supposed to operate, for all people for all time, instead each of us have our own moralities to hammer out and its up to us to do it.
Im reminded here of a great anecdote from the life of Lord Byron, the Romantic poet. The story goes that he was presented one day with Jeremey Bentham's (the utilitarian philosopher) book 'A Table of the Springs of Action' in which Bentham, in his dry, methodical way, set out to provide a mathematical framework for human conduct (his famous felific calculus). Byron was outraged, demanding "what does the old fool know of springs of action?" Along with Byron i also find hard to swallow any attempt to generalize and systematize human behaviour, especially moral conduct.

If somebody tells me in English, "I have a sharp pain in my chest and it hurts me terribly" wouldnt that be an immediate entry into her feelings, into how things seemed to her? And if not, why not?

It may be an entry into what they're feeling. It's not immediate experience.

Jesse wrote: It may be an entry into what they're feeling. It's not immediate experience.

Okay. Let me follow along. I can imagine our conversational partner altering her statement in English to say to me, "I am experiencing a sharp pain in my chest and it hurts me terribly." It seems to me that her statement would be my entry into her immediate experience. Is that correct; and if not, why not?

Moral delibrartion is entirely up to the individual's needs and circumstances. I dont believe in prescribing in the abstract how moral delibration is supposed to operate, for all people for all time, instead each of us have our own moralities to hammer out and its up to us to do it.

Okay. Let's use you for an example, wormwood. How did you in your concrete situation, when confronted with a particular moral choice, make that choice. I suppose I need to make the further provision that I am not asking you to make a recommendation of a course of action to anyone; I am merely asking you to make a sincere report of the process that led to your decision.

You are not experiencing it. It is an abstraction to you. It is nothing more than an idea that you have.

>55 Jesse_wiedinmyer:. My moral choices are my own business...
I imagine you ask because of message 37, where you counter my argument that it is impossible to accurately weigh how our moral decisions will impact upon others, and my conclusion that as such the consideration of others is not the rock hard touch stone for moral guidance that it is often portrayed to be. Now, you argue, 'It seems to me the same objection would apply to your original actor considering only her needs and her circumstances.'
This doesnt necessarily follow. Lets return to Perpetua shall we? Perpetua made the moral decision to die for her faith, for an idea. She clearly placed little value on herself as a unique individual. It could probably be objected here that in fact Perpetua placed a high value on her individual SOUL (and thus that she did in fact weigh herself into the equation). But this SOUL is simply her thoughts, her ideas, important yes, but not the whole of her, we are much more than simply thoughts, we are also bodies, and Perpetua clearly had no regard for her body. But the body makes us who we are just as much as our thoughts (maybe more). So to consider ourselves fully as individuals we must incorporate our unique bodies as much as our thoughts and feelings into the picture. Perpetua didnt, she concentrated on ideas, on principles, she stepped into the Platonic light and cast her body into the shadows.
Now if there is a confusion within an individual's thoughts and feelings about the right way to proceed then there is one thing that is crystal clear, that is, our bodies. THere you have an accurate scale, and if Perpetua had only weighed herself on it, she would have chosen Life. Once we have recognized the morality of the body then we recognize that one of life's biggest moral questions is... how will this secure my self preservation?

"Perpetua clearly had no regard for her body"
"if Perpetua had only weighed herself on it, she would have chosen Life."

How do you know this?

I think i've already made that clear
Because she chose to die for an idea

That means she had no regard for her body, and that if she had she would have chosen to save her body?

I think that is not so clearly made.

Would you mind explaining just what it is that your having trouble with?

I do not understand how you know what Perpetua thought of her physical body and of her family and of her life and I do not understand how you know that if she had thought well of her body she would not have chosen death over an idea.

I have other aspects of your points that I do not understand, but the others may be answered if I can learn the source of your knowledge of these two things.

Do you really think that my argument about Perpetua is entirely dependent on access on her innermost thoughts and feelings? She is a concrete historical example of a tendency that im describing to sacrifice one's unique individuality to an idea. Perpetua stands as an exemplar of this. She stands also for every Christian martyr. Do you think i need to know the innermost thoughts and feelings of every Christian martyr to make the statement that Christians martyrs during the Roman persecutions valued their beliefs over their bodies. I think you'll find that what i'm saying is not controversial and that any history of the Christian persecutions will support my claim (what would be controversial, in fact, was if someone seriously argued that despite all the evidence to the contrary Christian martyrs absolutelly adored their bodies, valued them as highly as their ideas, but sacrificed them anyway... why? well why indeed? such an argument makes no sense and would be laughed out of any serious scholarly historical discussion). In fact Perpetua stands not just for Christians but anybody who sacrifices themselves for an idea, for terrrorists who commit suicide bombings, for young men who go to war for the Fatherland.
But even putting Perpetua as an examplar aside. Your objection is tantamount to someone saying about a Islamic suicide bomber, 'but how do you know he thought little of his physical body? you dont have access to his innermost thoughts and feelings' ... 'how do i know"? i'll tell you how i know, there's his body parts strewn overr the sidewalk, that's how i know. And there's Perpetua with her throat slit in the ampitheatre, that's how i know.

Thanks.

So entertaining!

Lets return to Perpetua shall we?

Your return to Perpetua is a big waste of time. Reason #1 because you do not discuss the process of moral deliberation she used. Reason #2 is, you characterize her moral decision as a choice to die for an idea, while Perpetua's own characterization, and thus the "process" she went through, is much different.

Reading her story http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/perpetua.htm... it seems obvious to me that she thought she was associating herself not with an idea, but with a real supernatural power much greater than herself. Her belief and her decision were buttressed by visions, and the guard Pudens recognizing great power in her.

Now if there is a confusion within an individual's thoughts and feelings about the right way to proceed then there is one thing that is crystal clear, that is, our bodies. THere you have an accurate scale, and if Perpetua had only weighed herself on it, she would have chosen Life. Once we have recognized the morality of the body then we recognize that one of life's biggest moral questions is... how will this secure my self preservation?

Perpetua's moral decision was based on the revelation of a LIFE after death. Her vision of defeating the Egyptian, taking the olive branch and approaching the Gate of Life bear that out. Apparently the life after death is even better than the mortal life.

In any event, to go back to my original question of how you thought moral deliberation worked, it seems now that you hold that some sort weighing goes on by the "accurate scale" of the body, at least, and that the body and self preservation should trump mere ideas. That's some insight into what you think, I guess---but I dont see how the body scale is any more accurate than the idea scale (or the revelation scale, which in Perpetua's case knocks all the other scales over).

Wow, so my post was a great big waste of time, and yet the whole point of your post is to prove to me that different people have different scales of values, and that my valuing of the individual body is... wait for it... oh its going to be good... different to that of a Christian martyr. Brilliant! i've seen the light.
oh wait but there's more..... youve also told me that Perpetua's moral decision was based on the revelation of a Life after death, who would of thought it? a Christian martyr who believed in Life after death, how strange. What a valuable and enlighening and worthwhile read that was, such a good use of my time, why it was almost up to the standard of your facinating semantic distinctions between the words 'woven' 'fixed' and 'integral'.

Jesse_wiedinmyer wrote: You are not experiencing it. It is an abstraction to you. It is nothing more than an idea that you have.

That's an interesting approach. Who did you read that turned you on to this way of thinking? It seems worth investigating.

I'm just following Mr.W's thoughts to their logical conclusion.

Is there a conflict here? Isn’t this the not disprovable selfishness everywhere debate over again? I’ve got a good job said Mother Theresa, those nobody else cares for are very grateful that I care, I enjoy that very much.

“Life is a game: let the child be king,” says Heraclitus. Some has thought he thereby pointed out that children don’t like rules; they have projected onto the fragment the vision of a child gleefully smashing the playing board, so that the once orderly placed playing pieces fly in the air.

And left without order, with everyone reacting spontaneously, spontaneous order emerges? We’re one big zillion-human societal entity, turning on, tuning in, dropping out – have a toke?

It seems to me Mr. Wormwood that your question begs another question. When you use the term "philosophy" here what exactly do you have in mind? After all, not all sub-disciplines of "philosophy" are cut from the same bolt of cloth. So, perhaps "existentialism" relates more to the individual "self" whereas "political philosophy" is more oriented to "society". What do you think?

Phaedrus

When i use the term philosophy i have in mind the Ancient Greeks, particularly Socrates, the Cynics, the Stoics, the Epicureans and the Sceptics. I view these groups as constituting the embodiment of 'true' philosophy.

But there is no 'true' philosophy, just various interpretations. There are some interpretations that seem common, almost the norm, now, which, either i'm not sympathetic too, or i think are total corruptions of the philosophical spirit. 'Political philosophy' is in the former category, it doesn't really rock my boat, in fact i think it's needlesskt dangerous and should be avoided, but i wouldn't say its antithetical to the philosophical spirit.
The Ancient Greeks engaged in political philosophy, Plato being a good example of this. But Plato is the one Ancient Greek of which i am NOT a fan, and the Republic is a terrible book which advocates a totalitarian state.

terrywf, good question. I think others were dancing around that same line of questioning earlier in the thread.

Wormwood, could you explain why you think the Ancient Greeks embody 'true' philosophy? Or more to the point, what your definition of true philosophy is and how one eliminates definitions of philosophy that are (or lead to) corruptions?

This might be better for another thread.

The primary purpose of philosophy in the post-Socratic period in Ancient Greece and Rome was definitely to train the individual in the 'art of life' Epictetus

=============================

Physics is the study of the love of one object for one another. Aristotle

================================

Hint.

Mr_Wormwood:
"I invite members thoughts on the topic of whether philosophy should be fundamentally orientated to the self or to society. Is it better conceived of as an intensely personal execise in character/spiritual development, or is its purpose to cure social ills and bring about a better society for others?"

It isn't about how philosophy should or should not be orientated, as such an argument is seeking authority. I would be happy to clarify this point but I want to attack what I believe to be the heart of the question.

Philosophy must be about the self, or rather selves. Society is but a collection of selves, but the reason philosophy must be centered on individuals is not because of the composition of society, but because only an individual can ask and answer questions. Truth, as far as it exists, is also arrived at by the individual. It is the individual that can point out fallacies. These actions can be reproduced by others, but then philosophy is no less an individual task due to the participation of many individuals.

The purposes stated above do not necessarily exclude each other. An individual may pursue philosophy to develop his character, and doing so may also bring about a better society.

Mr_Wormwood:
"And yet it seems to me that that perfect middle ground is relatively rare to find and that most philosophers seem to lean to one or the other side of the issue. "

Every issue has at least three sides. At least.

"And yet is there not another, counter morality at work here? are not these philosophers in many ways MORE moral than those who entangle themselves in philosophical movements such as Utiliarianism and Communism which so blithely take on the authority of acting for the 'greater good' and who's ulitmate legacy is so terribly disappointing. They at least have fully grasped the rarest of virtues, 'minding one's own business'."

There is immorality all around where violence against peaceful people is justified. The philosophers you mention are not more moral (than communists or others), only equally immoral. Individualism is moral as far as respect for private property is maintained. The radical individualists that you refer to violate the singular moral precept of the inviolability of rightly held private property.

Once the private property (body) of one individual violates the private property (body) of another, the aggressor's property (body) is no longer inviolable.

This singular principle is a categorical imperative.

wormwood:

"THis 'democratic politics' has never existed and will never exist, its an idealistic pipedream. Just how are you going to wrestle authority away from the well-entrenched and well-resourced state bureacracies that run our day to day lives?"

There can be no question that "democratic politics" exists. To advance the discussion only requires that we agree what such a term signifies in relation to actual governance. Does it operate the same as the ideals held by any individual? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Such a question is irrelevant when we are searching for a definition of what is.

Perhaps you meant to say that pure democracy does not exist, or is unattainable?

I do know that in the western world the model is that of a democratic republic whereby some individuals choose the rulers for all, who in turn pass laws, pass judgement and imprison people. There are many, however, who do not choose to be ruled but are subject to rule regardless, which violates their person when they have harmed no one.

You speak as though "democratic politics" will be achieved when power is taken from bureaucracies. Taken by whom and for what purpose?

"what would be controversial, in fact, was if someone seriously argued that despite all the evidence to the contrary Christian martyrs absolutelly adored their bodies, valued them as highly as their ideas, but sacrificed them anyway... why? well why indeed? such an argument makes no sense and would be laughed out of any serious scholarly historical discussion"

The value of the sacrifice for an idea is only as great as the value placed on what was given up. Since we cannot say what value was placed on individual bodies by those individuals, we cannot say how great the sacrifices were for them.

But, as we are humans, we can attribute a value of our own, or such value can inform us as to the degree to which a human might value an idea above the protection of his body when he sacrifices it.

Choice is all about the value of what is chosen being greater than that which is not chosen.

That last point is a good one, and one i hadn't given the credence it's due, thanks for that.
The point about philosophy having a basic foundation in individuals asking questions was nice too. However, I don't think an individual pursueing a better character can bring about a change in the character of society. Jesus is a case in point.
Like the point about my philsophers not being more moral but equally immoral. Immorality need not be a pejorative term though, immorality too has its share of 'the good'

Mr_Wormwood:
"However, I don't think an individual pursueing a better character can bring about a change in the character of society. Jesus is a case in point. "

If an individual betters himself through philosophy, then society is better, as society is as good as the collection of individuals are good. It would follow that if others bettered themselves through philosophy then society would gain even more.

Jesus was only one person. One person bettering himself only improves society by one person.

"immorality too has its share of 'the good'"

No, the two concepts are mutually exclusive. That which is good cannot be immoral, just as that which is immoral cannot be good in any amount or to any degree. This is because moral and immoral, good and evil are related terms.

Stealing is immoral because it violates the property of another. To say "it is not good to steal" is to recognize the violation. To refrain from stealing is moral and good, because such action entails respect for the property of another.

In what way do you see immorality as have "a share of the good"?

"Stealing is immoral because it violates the property of another. "

...."'ll example you with thievery:
The sun's a thief, and with his great attraction
Robs the vast sea; the moon's an arrant thief,
And her pale fire she snatches from the sun;
The sea's a thief, whose liquid surge resolves
The moon into salt tears; the earth's a thief,
That feeds and breeds by a composture stol'n
From gen'ral excrement- each thing's a thief."
Shakespeare.

Okay, all of the "thieves" you mentioned (sun, sea and earth) have been anthropomorphised. The word "thief" is being used metaphorically and poetically, not literally. Since we do not have an example of actual thievery there is no human action that can be called moral or immoral, good or evil.

I thought thats what you'd say, and of course im aware of that.
Shakespeare is of course speaking metaphorically, as all great artists do, but, like all great artists when he speaks metaphorically he points to a deeper truth. The truth that Shakespeare points to in the above passage is that Nature is immoral, one thing lives by stealing its sustenance from another.