Idealism

[Bramble]

Do you ever have any doubts, Sriram? I'm finding some of your views a touch chilling.

Yes...but that is too individualistic.  And that is the issue I have with this sort of thing.

You seem to want a society of clones, all worshiping some kind of groupthink. I know we're often said to have a herd mentality as a species but you seem to take this to an extreme, apparently wanting to hammer every square peg into whatever the socially approved round hole happens to be. In some societies that would prescribe stoning people for dropping a holy book or forcing women to hide in a squalid hut while they had their period. According to you the 'mature' view in such societies would be to fall into line with these 'ideals'.

Obviously we all can and do have individual ideals, no doubt about that. But most of our Ideals have to be in tandem with the ideals of society as a whole, otherwise they are not ideals, they are just individual objectives.

This is a fascinating insight into your thinking. I've never before come across the peculiar notion that ideals must by definition accord with groupthink. Your views seem to be even more Orwellian than I'd thought.

Whether we blindly follow social ideals because of authority or we rebel because of our individuality or we have a well considered and balanced view on them, is a different matter and depends on which stage of development we are in.

So even though we 'should' all eventually think alike we mustn't do this by blind acceptance of authority. We must do so through careful consideration, thus validating the wisdom of groupthink. What if our careful consideration leads us to a different view? Would this be because we have not yet considered carefully enough and must try again, perhaps with a bit of 're-education' from our 'betters'? What if we never come round to the 'correct' view? Would that be because our rebellious self is too strong or our herd-conforming self too weak? Is there perhaps another self we could bring into play to get us out of this bind? At what point should we be judged to be beyond salvage and what should then happen to us in this Utopia of yours?

But at the third mature stage, our individual ideals cannot be in conflict with that of our larger society. If it is, then we are still at the rebel stage and our actions could therefore be a matter of concern or sometimes, one of pride.  It means maladjustment.....or in very rare cases, a revolutionary change.

Speaking of maladjustment, how do you think the human race is doing right now? Are we a credit to this planet? It was one of your countrymen, Krishnamurti, who said: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Did he have a point or was he maladjusted too?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes...but that is too individualistic.  And that is the issue I have with this sort of thing.

Obviously we all can and do have individual ideals, no doubt about that. But most of our Ideals have to be in tandem with the ideals of society as a whole, otherwise they are not ideals, they are just individual objectives.

Whether we blindly follow social ideals because of authority or we rebel because of our individuality or we have a well considered and balanced view on them, is a different matter and depends on which stage of development we are in.

But at the third mature stage, our individual ideals cannot be in conflict with that of our larger society. If it is, then we are still at the rebel stage and our actions could therefore be a matter of concern or sometimes, one of pride.  It means maladjustment.....or in very rare cases, a revolutionary change.

It seems like some societies are trying out individualism as one of their ideals, which means individuals being individualistic are in tandem with the ideals of the society if they live in one of those societies.

People at the mature stage will not blindly follow individualism because of authority, nor will they rebel against society's ideal of individualism but will have a balanced view on individualism.  Perhaps it is you that is out of step by rebelling against individualism. Or maybe you are in step with your society and out of step with the individualistic societies. I don't live in India so I don't know what your society's ideals are, or as Bramble said maybe there is conflict between different segments of each society having different ideals. 

Societies presumably keep assessing the costs and benefits of the ideals they espouse to see if ideals need to be changed. Again that leads to conflict as different segments disagree with those assessments or do not want to make the sacrifices that are required to follow those ideals.

Coming back to Japan - deciding you don't want to make the sacrifices required for relationships, marriage and kids isn't such a problem is it? Other cultures are reproducing so it all balances out and our human population increases. Throughout history, cultures, societies and philosophies come and go and are replaced by different societies, cultures and philosophies as people who make up societies discard ideals and try other ideals and merge and blend depending on their environment. Cost of living is high because people like lots of stuff and marriage and children are expensive so in Japan ideals have changed.

[Shaker]

It was one of your countrymen, Krishnamurti, who said: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Did he have a point or was he maladjusted too?

I had an idea that it was R. D. Laing, but no matter: I was thinking of that very line too.

[Bramble]

Sriram advocates the classic religious bind. To come to the correct view you must choose your beliefs freely (i.e. by careful consideration rather than obedience to authority) but you have no freedom about what these beliefs will be.

[Bramble]

I had an idea that it was R. D. Laing, but no matter: I was thinking of that very line too.

You had me wondering there. It does sound like something Laing might have said but I've just googled the quote and it appears that it was Krishnamurti. Perhaps Laing liked it and said it too. Makes me think of this:

Oscar Wilde: I wish I had said that.
James McNeill Whistler: You will, Oscar, you will.

[Sriram]

It seems like some societies are trying out individualism as one of their ideals, which means individuals being individualistic are in tandem with the ideals of the society if they live in one of those societies.

People at the mature stage will not blindly follow individualism because of authority, nor will they rebel against society's ideal of individualism but will have a balanced view on individualism.  Perhaps it is you that is out of step by rebelling against individualism. Or maybe you are in step with your society and out of step with the individualistic societies. I don't live in India so I don't know what your society's ideals are, or as Bramble said maybe there is conflict between different segments of each society having different ideals. 

Societies presumably keep assessing the costs and benefits of the ideals they espouse to see if ideals need to be changed. Again that leads to conflict as different segments disagree with those assessments or do not want to make the sacrifices that are required to follow those ideals.

Coming back to Japan - deciding you don't want to make the sacrifices required for relationships, marriage and kids isn't such a problem is it? Other cultures are reproducing so it all balances out and our human population increases. Throughout history, cultures, societies and philosophies come and go and are replaced by different societies, cultures and philosophies as people who make up societies discard ideals and try other ideals and merge and blend depending on their environment. Cost of living is high because people like lots of stuff and marriage and children are expensive so in Japan ideals have changed.

Any society will allow individualism only so far as it is useful to that society.    If individualism means creativity, better business models, more scientific research, more entrepreneurship....then a society will allow it. Free ideas are different from free ideals. I hope you understand that!

If it  means madcap rebellion or going against basic values such as racism.....no society will allow it. Individual ideals will have to (at the mature stage) eventually mesh in with social ideals and objectives....otherwise that society will disintegrate. 

[Sriram]

Do you ever have any doubts, Sriram? I'm finding some of your views a touch chilling.

You seem to want a society of clones, all worshiping some kind of groupthink. I know we're often said to have a herd mentality as a species but you seem to take this to an extreme, apparently wanting to hammer every square peg into whatever the socially approved round hole happens to be. In some societies that would prescribe stoning people for dropping a holy book or forcing women to hide in a squalid hut while they had their period. According to you the 'mature' view in such societies would be to fall into line with these 'ideals'.

This is a fascinating insight into your thinking. I've never before come across the peculiar notion that ideals must by definition accord with groupthink. Your views seem to be even more Orwellian than I'd thought.
 

So even though we 'should' all eventually think alike we mustn't do this by blind acceptance of authority. We must do so through careful consideration, thus validating the wisdom of groupthink. What if our careful consideration leads us to a different view? Would this be because we have not yet considered carefully enough and must try again, perhaps with a bit of 're-education' from our 'betters'? What if we never come round to the 'correct' view? Would that be because our rebellious self is too strong or our herd-conforming self too weak? Is there perhaps another self we could bring into play to get us out of this bind? At what point should we be judged to be beyond salvage and what should then happen to us in this Utopia of yours?

Speaking of maladjustment, how do you think the human race is doing right now? Are we a credit to this planet? It was one of your countrymen, Krishnamurti, who said: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Did he have a point or was he maladjusted too?

Which of the current social ideals (almost uniform to all countries) do you disagree with exactly?  Reversing global warming, humanism,  equality to women, no discrimination based on colour or sex,  protection of children, animal rights, non violence....and so on!    Do let me know....!

[ProfessorDavey]

Any society will allow individualism only so far as it is useful to that society.

But society is made up of individuals, so it is for those individuals to decide how society should be shaped.

[ProfessorDavey]

If it  means madcap rebellion ...

But rebellion typically arises when societies refuse to accept change in the views of the individuals that make up that society. When the disconnect becomes too great then unrest is likely.

or going against basic values such as racism.....no society will allow it.

Actually plenty of societies have allowed it (e.g. South Africa, USA etc etc) and many still do. It was individualism and individuals with ideals that challenged the societal view that racial segregation was OK that eventually lead to eradication of state-sanctioned racism in both South Africa and USA.

[Sriram]

But rebellion typically arises when societies refuse to accept change in the views of the individuals that make up that society. When the disconnect becomes too great then unrest is likely.
Actually plenty of societies have allowed it (e.g. South Africa, USA etc etc) and many still do. It was individualism and individuals with ideals that challenged the societal view that racial segregation was OK that eventually lead to eradication of state-sanctioned racism in both South Africa and USA.

That is obvious isn't it?  That is what I meant by a revolutionary change. 

Every madcap who thinks he should think differently from others is not a revolutionary. He is just a rebel who needs to grow up and understand that he is also a part of society.  Every individual goes through that phase.

If certain ideas are different from the traditionally accepted ones and they are useful to society, they will be accepted by the others by and by. It will automatically move from the adolescent stage to the mature stage and people will find ways of bringing about the change in society. Only then is it a revolutionary change. It is finally about what the majority accept. 

A truly revolutionary idea will never remain an individuals 'putting out the tongue' at society.  That is only a maladjusted persons reaction.

[Shaker]

.. when, curiously enough (or not), the one who seems truly maladjusted here is you.

[Sriram]

.. when, curiously enough (or not), the one who seems truly maladjusted here is you.

And you guys here are revolutionary thinkers..right?!   Ha..Ha!!    Good one..Shaker!

[Shaker]

And you guys here are revolutionary thinkers..right?!   Ha..Ha!!    Good one..Shaker!

No, but we are nevertheless thinkers. Which, I suspect, is why you consistently seem so out of place here with your biofields and your slavish love of herd mentality, conformity and 'society'.

[Sriram]

No, but we are nevertheless thinkers. Which, I suspect, is why you consistently seem so out of place here with your biofields and your slavish love of herd mentality, conformity and 'society'.

People who  call themselves 'Thinkers'...are seldom so!  What exactly do you think about...Shaker?  How to pick holes in the bible??!!  Ha..Ha!

You are a society of atheists...for heaven's sake...so stop conforming!  Think differently! Become a theist! 

[Shaker]

People who  call themselves 'Thinkers'...are seldom so!  What exactly do you think about...Shaker?  How to pick holes in the bible??!!  Ha..Ha!

That doesn't take much thought.

You are a society of atheists...for heaven's sake...so stop conforming!  Think differently! Become a theist! 

Not being an idiot, there's no chance whatever of that this side of some sort of catastrophic traumatic brain injury.

[Bramble]

Which of the current social ideals (almost uniform to all countries) do you disagree with exactly?  Reversing global warming, humanism,  equality to women, no discrimination based on colour or sex,  protection of children, animal rights, non violence....and so on!    Do let me know....!

You have an astonishing aptitude for ignoring points you don't want to address, Sriram. I don't think anyone on this thread so far has suggested that there aren't many generally shared ideals in their own society. I certainly haven't. So you are not responding to something I've written. Your post looks more like an attempt to shelter behind a straw man.

In the OP you wrote: 'One of the hallmarks of our times is the absence of Idealism. No one has the confidence in oneself or the trust in others to determine and follow any set of ideals any more.' And yet here you are expressing incredulity that someone might disagree with societal ideals. So which is it? Do most of us already already share these ideals or does 'no one' do so any more? If ideals are, by your earlier definition, ideals of society as a whole then presumably most of us already share them, in which case what are you complaining about? If 'no one' shares them then they cannot be shared societal ideals and therefore aren't ideals at all, just the personal objectives of adolescent hippies such as myself.

I imagine you did your best to choose ideals that you thought nobody could reasonably disagree with when you complied the list you provided in your response (above), yet sadly some societies do not generally subscribe to all of these, as you must well know. I've certainly been to cultures where animal rights, for example, are scarcely recognised at all, and women can scarcely be considered to have gained equality throughout the world. According to you the 'mature' view in societies that did not grant animals and women their 'due' rights would be confirm those prejudices. Or are you presuming the right to judge which societal ideals count and which don't? Earlier you lamented those who didn't subscribe to things being right or wrong in themselves, which would suggest that if ideals are to be thought of as 'right thinking' then they cannot change over time or vary from place to place. As ideals do vary widely and are subject to constant revision then presumably they cannot count as right thinking, in which case why do you demand that everyone follows them? You seem to have tied yourself up in knots.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Any society will allow individualism only so far as it is useful to that society.    If individualism means creativity, better business models, more scientific research, more entrepreneurship....then a society will allow it. Free ideas are different from free ideals. I hope you understand that!

If it  means madcap rebellion or going against basic values such as racism.....no society will allow it. Individual ideals will have to (at the mature stage) eventually mesh in with social ideals and objectives....otherwise that society will disintegrate.

I still don't understand your argument. Your OP said "One of the hallmarks of our times is the absence of Idealism. No one has the confidence in oneself or the trust in others to determine and follow any set of ideals any more. The concept of 'Character' building seems outdated."

But then your post to Bramble just now said that there are ideals that are uniform to all societies and you went on to list some of those ideals. If society is made up of individuals how can you argue that society has ideals and at the same time argue that no one has the confidence to determine and follow any set of ideals. How do these ideals still exist and be uniform to societies if no one in the societies has the confidence to hold them? Either your OP is badly stated or your response to Bramble that these ideals are uniformly held is badly stated.

I see lots of people around me wanting to follow the ideals about equality etc that you listed so I think it is your OP that is badly stated.

Unless you are arguing that religion, spirituality and philosophies are the only evidence of idealism in your opinion and also in your opinion people do not have guiding principles they live their life by. Again, I personally see a lot of people with guiding principles with which they try to live their lives so I don't recognise your OP as reflecting the society I live in.

[ProfessorDavey]

That is obvious isn't it?  That is what I meant by a revolutionary change. 

Every madcap who thinks he should think differently from others is not a revolutionary. He is just a rebel who needs to grow up and understand that he is also a part of society.  Every individual goes through that phase.

But who is to decide whether the individual is a 'revolutionary' or a 'rebel'.

History tells us that many people considered at the time to be simply madcap rebels, were in fact forward thinking revolutionaries - it was just that they were ahead of their time.

[Shaker]

But who is to decide whether the individual is a 'revolutionary' or a 'rebel'.

History tells us that many people considered at the time to be simply madcap rebels, were in fact forward thinking revolutionaries - it was just that they were ahead of their time.

Along the same lines, some societies - Stalin's Russia springs to mind - regarded independent thinkers (meaning: didn't agree with the regime) as subversives and even by definition mentally ill, and therefore fit for incarceration. If you have to be mad to disagree with the system, disagreeing with the system means you're mad.

Joseph Heller was pretty good on this sort of thing.

[ProfessorDavey]

Along the same lines, some societies - Stalin's Russia springs to mind - regarded independent thinkers (meaning: didn't agree with the regime) as subversives and even by definition mentally ill, and therefore fit for incarceration. If you have to be mad to disagree with the system, disagreeing with the system means you're mad.

Joseph Heller was pretty good on this sort of thing.

Exactly - societies that suppress individualism 'for the greater good' tend to end up autocratic and totalitarian. It may be small minorities that suffer, much larger swathes of society or even the majority. But ultimately people suffer.

[Nearly Sane]

I still don't understand your argument. Your OP said "One of the hallmarks of our times is the absence of Idealism. No one has the confidence in oneself or the trust in others to determine and follow any set of ideals any more. The concept of 'Character' building seems outdated."

But then your post to Bramble just now said that there are ideals that are uniform to all societies and you went on to list some of those ideals. If society is made up of individuals how can you argue that society has ideals and at the same time argue that no one has the confidence to determine and follow any set of ideals. How do these ideals still exist and be uniform to societies if no one in the societies has the confidence to hold them? Either your OP is badly stated or your response to Bramble that these ideals are uniformly held is badly stated.

I see lots of people around me wanting to follow the ideals about equality etc that you listed so I think it is your OP that is badly stated.

Unless you are arguing that religion, spirituality and philosophies are the only evidence of idealism in your opinion and also in your opinion people do not have guiding principles they live their life by. Again, I personally see a lot of people with guiding principles with which they try to live their lives so I don't recognise your OP as reflecting the society I live in.

It's an odd combination that seems to appear with religions and philosophies of advancement that as things develop they get better and worse simultaneously! They want to take credit for the good things but claim that the seeds of that goodness were in some golden era. In one sense I read Sriram dressing up the old idea that in youth we are passionate radicals, but age brings the wisdom of compromise and sacrifice, generated by the knowledge of our own flaws. I fear for me this reads as simplistic romanticism, an attempt to shore up an idea of wisdom, that seems unborne out by history.


As ever, I return to my feelings of the absurdity of life, its lack of following easy schema, the contradictions of our power and powerlessness. What a piece of work is man, or indeed woman, as Shakespeare nearly put it, and yet also the quintessence of dust. The absurdity, I see, turns me from that idealism of my youth but leaves me with the knowledge that in an absurd world, everything, rather than nothing matters. Utopias are nowhere but there is always good to be done. Maybe it won't change anything ever, maybe it doesn't matter beyond the tenous grasp of my neurons but that's all it needs. A tiny spark, disappearing in a instant, lost forever but still the most beautiful shining moment.

[Sriram]

Why everyone is so agitated I don't understand. It is almost as if I  just announced Brexit or something!!! 

Anyway, I think I have explained sufficiently and I don't need to explain any more. Make of it whatever you can folks! 

Cheers. 

[Enki]

Why everyone is so agitated I don't understand. It is almost as if I  just announced Brexit or something!!! 

Anyway, I think I have explained sufficiently and I don't need to explain any more. Make of it whatever you can folks! 

Cheers. 

I see no evidence of agitation here, some puzzlement as to what you meant and straightforward disagreement on certain points, but no agitation. In fact I would like to thank you for providing your views on this topic as it has led to what I consider to be some excellent replies, especially by Bramble, which have given me some interesting food for thought.