An interesting question regarding human nature

[metis]

IMO, social cohesion is more important, but still a mixture of both is very important as well.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nothing to philosophize. We live in a society. Society is more important than individuals.

So no balance necessary, in your view? Conform and live, don't and...?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I cannot answer in poll because I’m not sure what you mean by above sentence. Can you elaborate?

Humbly,
Hermit

Aside from a slight misspelling (humanity's, instead of humanities), what I mean is the continuation of human life on this planet. Does that work better when humans conform by suppressing individuality so as to maintain social cohesion, or does human individuality and striving for individual satisfaction lead to the creativity and vigour to propose and develop new ideas?

 

[Fool]

I have long been interested in trying to understand human nature, and how we cope with the challenge of being both a social species, but with the capacity for self-regard and self-preservation, even at the expense of defaulting on our social obligations.

I'd like to investigate this further by asking members to answer a simple poll question: "Which is more important to the advancement of humanities survival -- social cohesion or individual freedom of expression?"

Here are a few things to think about:

Stonehenge could never have been built without social cohesion and a commitment to shared outcomes, but could it be even conceived of without some individual imagination?

Invention is an individual, creative thing that committees are patently terrible at. Yet, how to use inventions (like the atomic bomb, or sex reassignment surgery) is too often a very individual thing.

Democratic governments offer individuals a say in how the world they live in is managed, and yet sometimes that say is overridden by a majority that wants it managed another way. If you lose, should your individual preference be suppressed -- or should you go to war to get your way?

Happy philosophising!

we are social creatures who have basic needs. at every level of our individuality we need others to help fulfill that need. especially the need for love

 

[Sand Dancer]

I don't think it's an either-or question because I think both are important. However, I think social cohesion is more important. We are social beings, have lived in groups from the start of humanity, and do better together than apart.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think it's an either-or question because I think both are important. However, I think social cohesion is more important. We are social beings, have lived in groups from the start of humanity, and do better together than apart.

I knew it wasn't either-or also. But I assumed
that the OP wanted to tease out each poster's
orientation, ie, their perspective.
It seems a small government vs big government
or capitalist vs communist discussion that he's
fomenting. He's tricky that way.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So no balance necessary, in your view? Conform and live, don't and...?

No society is static. Changes occur with time and because of the will of the people who constitute the society. Go along with society as it changes. For example, widow re-marriage, inter-caste marriage, divorce, acceptance of former excluded sections of the society in Hindu society.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I knew it wasn't either-or also. But I assumed
that the OP wanted to tease out each poster's
orientation, ie, which is their perspective.
It seems a small government vs big government
or capitalist vs communist discussion that he's
fomenting. He's tricky that way.

Not really, or at least not entirely. I've been pursuing this notion for quite some time -- that humans are a social species with a huge capacity to default from the dictates of social organization. And I think this is a large part of the various questions of good versus evil, and so forth. I've commented before on Professor Jacob Needleman's excellent book, "'Why Can't We be Good?" He hovers around this point. And I was just perusing some 1948 (year of my birth) notes on Bertrand Russell's "Philosophy of Human Nature," and this is a question that he digs fairly deeply into.

I do honestly think it is a fundamental issue for our species, that can help to explain how we can claim to be (for example) "good Christians" and yet at the same time do so much harm to one another. The GOP (which is pretty generally Christian) should, in my view, accept some of the blame for the fact that, as in Oklahoma on Saturday night, that most hate violence in the United States these days is directed at the LGBTQ+ community -- you know, those individual enough not to conform to societal norms of heterosexual sex and marriage.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No society is static. Changes occur with time and because of the will of the people who constitute the society. Go along with society as it changes. For example, widow re-marriage, inter-caste marriage, divorce, acceptance of former excluded sections of the society in Hindu society.

But in following that pattern, it necessarily means stifling the individuality of some people in the moment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not really, or at least not entirely. I've been pursuing this notion for quite some time -- that humans are a social species with a huge capacity to default from the dictates of social organization. And I think this is a large part of the various questions of good versus evil, and so forth. I've commented before on Professor Jacob Needleman's excellent book, "'Why Can't We be Good?" He hovers around this point. And I was just perusing some 1948 (year of my birth) notes on Bertrand Russell's "Philosophy of Human Nature," and this is a question that he digs fairly deeply into.

I do honestly think it is a fundamental issue for our species, that can help to explain how we can claim to be (for example) "good Christians" and yet at the same time do so much harm to one another. The GOP (which is pretty generally Christian) should, in my view, accept some of the blame for the fact that, as in Oklahoma on Saturday night, that most hate violence in the United States these days is directed at the LGBTQ+ community -- you know, those individual enough not to conform to societal norms of heterosexual sex and marriage.

I notice that both Dems & Pubs strive for social cohesion.
But each envisions a a different structure for it. The problem
I have with both is that the individual would be forced to
conform more than I prefer.

 

[Heyo]

That's not how I interpret social cohesion.

That seems to be the reason of the misunderstanding.

The opposite, in fact. Intolerance of minorities is hardly conducive to cohesion. Societies - such as the USA - which espouse civil liberty as their highest ideal, often exhibit in practice the least tolerance of social deviancy.

Sadly true. The culture of (a big part of) the US is a stark contrast of their ideals.

In the UK I do not have the freedom to promote or propagate hatred and division, and neither should I. My liberties, both legal and personal, are tempered by my responsibilities to my fellow citizens. Because of this, I can peacefully go about my business with little likelihood of being shot by some party who, disapproving of my lifestyle, is at liberty to own a lethal weapon.

As you describe it, there seems to be little conflict between individuality and social cohesion. And I agree that that would be ideal. But I think the OP was out to see the conflict and ask for which side we are leaning. (Which I declined to answer.)
Maybe the question should had been phrased as opposition of unity and diversity?
Which team is going to survive, those with a common goal and possibly a strong leader who guarantees unity or the one with a bunch of individuals who may or may not have a common goal, will pull at the same string even though they are not very interested but have a lot of diverse ideas?
For a football team sized group, the answer is most likely the former, but will that scale?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Aside from a slight misspelling (humanity's, instead of humanities), what I mean is the continuation of human life on this planet. Does that work better when humans conform by suppressing individuality so as to maintain social cohesion, is does human individuality and striving for individual satisfaction lead to the creativity and vigour to propose and develop new ideas?

Thank you for that, Evangelicalhumanist. I had understood you differently and am glad that I asked first.

If social code had not played a significant role in the survival of our species, we would not have evolved the fine-tuned sensitivity that we have to it.

A regular wired, human brain is very alert to picking up social cues and learns fairly early in its interactions that it is (self)beneficial to take them into account.

Most “pack” animals have the instinct to seek affirmation before seeking out negative attention from their surroundings; something they will certainly do if they fear being ignored altogether. The reason for that is precisely their primal need for each other in order to survive both as individuals and as a species.

To assert oneself as an “individual” - in any post-industrial sense at least - is not primal or instinctive to Man; it is something taught.
And, only really possible within an industrially, technologically, etc. advanced, human environment.

I do find your angle interesting though, because it suggests that those same “advancements” that allow us to be more independent (from the “pack”), in themselves, may have required -and still do- a certain amount of independence to have taken place.

As with the question about what came first; the chicken or the hen, I suspect the answer to your one is the same: none and both, in a balanced process.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Alien826]

I think you'd agree that it's not an either-or matter for the humanist, who promotes maximally tolerant societies (all is tolerated except intolerance) with guaranteed personal rights in which people are autonomous citizens free to pursue happiness as they see fit within a legal framework that protects citizens from one another. One can psychologically be part a community working together for a mutual benefit while enjoying individual freedom of action and expression.

On a related note, American culture is seeing a breakdown of social cohesion that adopts the language of freedom of the individual without regard to the whole, as when we heard the forbidding of working some jobs and attending some venues tyranny. These are people who have little to no interest in or empathy for others, and they appear to be growing in number. They don't care that children and parents are terrified to attend schools because of guns. They only care about having unfettered access to as many of them as it takes to make them feel safe. They scream at people working entry level jobs or walking through their neighborhoods. They support strongman presidents and insurrection.

Where's the social cohesion there? Of course, that's the point of the incessant conservative propaganda - to sow dissent and division, to destroy community. So, this emphasizes the value and importance of a sense of we encompassing most of the society, where they are a minority of antisocial outliers rather than half the country.

I agree up to he last paragraph, and that only in respect to the motives of the rabble rousers. I don't think they want to destroy community, in fact I doubt many see beyond the ends of their noses in that respect. What they see is a discontented group of people that can be weaponized by fear and lies to vote for them and thus enhance their own power.

 

[Alien826]

I voted for cohesion as a strict response to the OP, that is which system contributes most to the future existence of the human race. In other words, survival alone, with no regard for individual well being. I think that a world population of 8 billion coupled with the fact that we are a social species pretty much answers the question.

On the other hand, it seems that social cohesion can and does lead to tribalism, and that seems to be headed toward the destruction of our environment, which almost certainly will lead to a dramatic reduction in our numbers, if not our total extinction.

So, might we be better off in the long run, by the pure survival standard, as individuals living alone? There would be no climate change or world wars, but would a few individuals survive as a scattered species that came together for mating only?

If we are discussing an ideal state of affairs, then I don't have a lot to add to what has been said already. To sum up, I would go for a cohesive society to provide basic necessities and a safe structure with enough breathing room for individuals to be, well, individual.

Just an aside, the analogy with lions that someone raised, is an interesting mixture. The pride does hunt together and share food, but when a new male lion takes over he kills all the cubs that were fathered by the previous leader and mates with the lionesses to further his own line. The ultimate in selfishness, by human standards.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thank you for that, Evangelicalhumanist. I had understood you differently and am glad that I asked first.

If social code had not played a significant role in the survival of our species, we would not have evolved the fine-tuned sensitivity that we have to it.

A regular wired, human brain is very alert to picking up social cues and learns fairly early in its interactions that it is (self)beneficial to take them into account.

Most “pack” animals have the instinct to seek affirmation before seeking out negative attention from their surroundings; something they will certainly do if they fear being ignored altogether. The reason for that is precisely their primal need for each other in order to survive both as individuals and as a species.

To assert oneself as an “individual” - in any post-industrial sense at least - is not primal or instinctive to Man; it is something taught.
And, only really possible within an industrially, technologically, etc. advanced, human environment.

I do find your angle interesting though, because it suggests that those same “advancements” that allow us to be more independent (from the “pack”), in themselves, may have required -and still do- a certain amount of independence to have taken place.

As with the question about what came first; the chicken or the hen, I suspect the answer to your one is the same: none and both, in a balanced process.


Humbly,
Hermit

You probably noticed, as did others, that I did suggest there was a choice of only two positions, one side or the other. And that makes answering difficult.

(An aside, when you mention which was first, the chicken or the hen -- I think you meant chicken or egg -- there is in fact a good answer to that one: the egg came first, being laid by something "almost-but-not-quite-chicken" but containing an embryo genetically slightly different than its parent that is, in fact, chicken.)

In this case, my own view is that there really isn't a good choice on one side of the question or other: both are equally important, and you can see this watching people facing a crisis. All of a sudden, and only while the crisis is ongoing, people will most often put aside their animosities and work together, for the benefit of all, because there are times when this is simply necessary.

As a Humanist, I agree with @9-10ths_Penguin and @It Aint Necessarily So in this thread, who don't see our differences and our individuality as necessarily antithetical to social cohesion. For the Humanist, the way around this is to accept others who are unique and/or different, so long as they are doing no harm. In this way, in fact, we believe we end up with much richer communities -- communities that, when they do come together at need, have access to many more skills and ideas than smaller, much more homogenous ones. We view that as a strength.

Humanists, like most other people, value both our belonging in our various communities, and our individuality and desire to pursue our own ends in our own ways -- and we value these equally. This allows us, or so we hope and strive, to value the individuality and self-pursuits of others, and at the same time accept them gladly in our communities.

In the end, I think this is the only way forward for humanity. Carl Sagan thought so, too, as have many other philosophers. As we get more powerful, and invent better and better means of destroying each other and our very planet, if we retain our ancestral fear of "outsiders," we will destroy both them and ourselves.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'd like to investigate this further by asking members to answer a simple poll question: "Which is more important to the advancement of humanities survival -- social cohesion or individual freedom of expression?"

A unity in our diversity, where the individual has the right of expression with clear moral and ethical boundaries.

Regards Tony

 

[Heyo]

For the Humanist, the way around this is to accept others who are unique and/or different, so long as they are doing no harm.

That exactly is the crux. Remember the discussion about gay marriage? Where the conservatives argued that it would devalue (i.e. harm) their marriage?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A unity in our diversity, where the individual has the right of expression with clear moral and ethical boundaries.

Regards Tony

While I might accept your notion of ethical boundaries, I find the notion of morals too personal and individual. I leave a person's morals to himself. And I don't care a fig for anyone else's opinions of mine. I do accept that others have the right to be concerned if I act unethically.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That exactly is the crux. Remember the discussion about gay marriage? Where the conservatives argued that it would devalue (i.e. harm) their marriage?

Except that they merely made the claim, never once demonstrating a credible way in which the marriage of two men or two women could have any impact on their own marriage. It was a canard, an unfounded tale meant to frighten people into acquiescence.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

…/I think you meant chicken or egg/…

Yes, I certainly did mean that! Haha

Humbly
Hermit