Individual or society ?
Which one defines the other ?
Is it the society which defines an individual ? or
Is it an individual which defines the society ?
Which one can exist without the other ?
Whichever can, defines the other.
According to me ... an individual can exist without the society but a society cant exist without an individual. A society, by definition, requires individuals for it to exist. An individual on the other hand, doesn't require a society to exist.
That's why we should attach more importance to an individual rather than a society. We should be more concerned about preserving fierce individualism than saving society's shams.
An amalgamation of individuals, though useful and maybe even required, shouldn't in any way replace an individual or his/her principles.
Losing a society is sad, losing an individual a tragedy.
Which one defines the other ?
Is it the society which defines an individual ? or
Is it an individual which defines the society ?
Which one can exist without the other ?
Whichever can, defines the other.
According to me ... an individual can exist without the society but a society cant exist without an individual. A society, by definition, requires individuals for it to exist. An individual on the other hand, doesn't require a society to exist.
That's why we should attach more importance to an individual rather than a society. We should be more concerned about preserving fierce individualism than saving society's shams.
An amalgamation of individuals, though useful and maybe even required, shouldn't in any way replace an individual or his/her principles.
Losing a society is sad, losing an individual a tragedy.
September 19, 2005 9:35 PMNice thot dude.. I mean point of view.. apprecaite it for sharing.
September 20, 2005 8:35 PM
is that not justifying each one of those individuals that do harm to society. hitler can very well be justified under the circumstances, hitler for his anti jewish stance .. and hence murdering thousands of em .. can we justify his situation in society ? cause if we lost hitler (the individual), it would have been a tragedy.
September 20, 2005 10:45 PM
individualism stresses the importance of a person ... it doesnt in any way say that the person will be hostile to a society ... all it means it that society shouldnt interfere with individual liberty ... if an indiviual becomes a fanatic thats not an issue which can be traced back just to individualism ... all i am saying is that one shouldnt be just another brick in the wall ... who wants to live like trained robots taught to think and act in a certain way ... thats what society does ... and thats what I am against ... saying hitler is a result of just individualism is like saying AIDS is a result of just having sex (which mite be true partly ... but is not the whole truth ... AIDS is a result of having unprotected sex amongst several other reasons) ... so is not having sex the solution ... well it could be, just that there would be no future generations ... so the solution is protected sex ... similarly, individualism was not the problem ... I hope the analogy is not very misleading ... cause according to me its exactly what u r tying to say.
September 21, 2005 9:01 PM
what needs to be done with hitler is the question .. let them their way cause they are just choosing to express their "individualism" or try and stop them cause they are a bigger threat to society. I am not saying hitler is aa result of individualism .. but he can be defended under that banner.
» Post a Comment