• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does the individual exist separate from society?

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Here's a puzzle I'm mulling over. As Thatcher once said, "there is no such thing as society". I was wondering if you could argue the reverse and that "there is no such thing as the individual" and only society (or the state as the embodiment of society) is real.

According to Marxist materialism everything in the consciousness of an individual is a reflection of the objective material world. Individual consciousness is only a "superstructure" on the basis of society and the social organisation of production. So society is primary and the individual is secondary and dependent on the former.

Putting it bluntly, everything in my consciousness from taste in food, music or art, my dreams when I sleep or day dreams when I am awake, my sexual fantasies and my political, religious and philosophical ideas have their origins in society and not from my own brain/mind. If I were crazy and suffering from hallucinations or delusions they remain social in character (i.e. If I think I'm napoleons or Jesus, I got the ideas of Jesus and napoleon from other people).

Free thought and free will cannot be said to exist (in a conventional sense) because neither thought nor will are independent of objective reality. Both thought and will are only free to the extent that we have "freedom of action" based on our knowledge of what is real and what is possible based on our finite powers within reality.

Can we therefore claim that the individual "exists" as an entity separate from society? What would it mean?

Feel free to challenge any of the points here as I am trying to figure out how to reason this out. :)
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
I would say that the boy who declared that the emperor has no clothes is truly a brave individual. If the individual does not exist, then what is it that stands against the dogma of the herd?
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Here's a puzzle I'm mulling over. As Thatcher once said, "there is no such thing as society". I was wondering if you could argue the reverse and that "there is no such thing as the individual" and only society (or the state as the embodiment of society) is real.

According to Marxist materialism everything in the consciousness of an individual is a reflection of the objective material world. Individual consciousness is only a "superstructure" on the basis of society and the social organisation of production. So society is primary and the individual is secondary and dependent on the former.

Putting it bluntly, everything in my consciousness from taste in food, music or art, my dreams when I sleep or day dreams when I am awake, my sexual fantasies and my political, religious and philosophical ideas have their origins in society and not from my own brain/mind. If I were crazy and suffering from hallucinations or delusions they remain social in character (i.e. If I think I'm napoleons or Jesus, I got the ideas of Jesus and napoleon from other people).

Free thought and free will cannot be said to exist (in a conventional sense) because neither thought nor will are independent of objective reality. Both thought and will are only free to the extent that we have "freedom of action" based on our knowledge of what is real and what is possible based on our finite powers within reality.

Can we therefore claim that the individual "exists" as an entity separate from society? What would it mean?

Feel free to challenge any of the points here as I am trying to figure out how to reason this out. :)
both are wrong because nothing can exist apart from everything, or anything else.

the illusion is that they are separate and this thread only reinforces that illusion
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I would say that the boy who declared that the emperor has no clothes is truly a brave individual. If the individual does not exist, then what is it that stands against the dogma of the herd?

If truth comes from objective reality, truth would be shared and is arguably social and not individual. So "nothing" at a guess. Major social changes involve swapping one herd for another.

But the interesting (and alarming) stuff happens when you think about if parroting about how individual we are is simply another form of conformity and herd thinking. Our individualism is just another herd morality based on what we think is "normal" as a set of beliefs inherited from our ancestors and not necessarily what is actually true. We just believe we are individuals because that's what we're told.

both are wrong because nothing can exist apart from everything, or anything else.

the illusion is that they are separate and this thread only reinforces that illusion

So does society come before and take precedence over the individual or does the individual take precedence over society?

If they aren't separate the individual person cannot be an individual morally speaking surely?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Here's a puzzle I'm mulling over. As Thatcher once said, "there is no such thing as society". I was wondering if you could argue the reverse and that "there is no such thing as the individual" and only society (or the state as the embodiment of society) is real.
You could try to live in the woods and never interact with another human again and still carry your culture with you. You could try to get rid of everything your society has indoctrinated into you but there'd probably always some residue of culture.
But that shows that individualism/socialism (not in the political sense) is a spectrum.
And it is also important what your "in" groups are. Familliy, friends, tribe, community, nationality all have influences to varying degrees - and you have varying loyality to those groups.
Western culture values individuality (or proclaims to do so), nationality and, ostensibly, family. Other cultures are more focused on tribe/community.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Here's a puzzle I'm mulling over. As Thatcher once said, "there is no such thing as society". I was wondering if you could argue the reverse and that "there is no such thing as the individual" and only society (or the state as the embodiment of society) is real.

According to Marxist materialism everything in the consciousness of an individual is a reflection of the objective material world. Individual consciousness is only a "superstructure" on the basis of society and the social organisation of production. So society is primary and the individual is secondary and dependent on the former.

Putting it bluntly, everything in my consciousness from taste in food, music or art, my dreams when I sleep or day dreams when I am awake, my sexual fantasies and my political, religious and philosophical ideas have their origins in society and not from my own brain/mind. If I were crazy and suffering from hallucinations or delusions they remain social in character (i.e. If I think I'm napoleons or Jesus, I got the ideas of Jesus and napoleon from other people).

Free thought and free will cannot be said to exist (in a conventional sense) because neither thought nor will are independent of objective reality. Both thought and will are only free to the extent that we have "freedom of action" based on our knowledge of what is real and what is possible based on our finite powers within reality.

Can we therefore claim that the individual "exists" as an entity separate from society? What would it mean?

Feel free to challenge any of the points here as I am trying to figure out how to reason this out. :)
I find this idea a particularly poisonous piece of totalitarian thinking. I hope you are just trolling. ;)

First of all, objectively, I exist, by cogito ergo sum. And I am not you, or anyone else. So who are they? Individuals.

Secondly, how absurd to equate the "objective material world" with society. Society has nothing to do with the existence of the objective natural world, as studied by natural science, for a start.

You can argue that without language, an individual may not be able to think like a human and that language is a product of society. So you may be able to make an argument that full humanity requires society or its products. But that is the most that can be said for the intrinsic importance of society to the individual.

As for the "social organisation of production", I fail to see how this tedious detail of economics has anything significant to tell us about who we are.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
But the interesting (and alarming) stuff happens when you think about if parroting about how individual we are is simply another form of conformity and herd thinking.
"You are all individuals." - "I'm not!" - Life of Brian
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
So does society come before and take precedence over the individual or does the individual take precedence over society?

If they aren't separate the individual person cannot be an individual morally speaking surely?
no relationship in a system is greater/lesser than another. but thinking in terms of greater/lesser is what creates the distortion of power struggle. everyone and everything has needs but when the needs have been met and they turn into hoarding; then for every action there is an opposite but equal reaction.

nothing in excess - oracle at delphi
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Some people fit into society better than others. This works for the benefit of society, but it also results in individuals. "Who fits in best?" is hard to answer. Happy children I suppose fit in the best.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Here's a puzzle I'm mulling over. As Thatcher once said, "there is no such thing as society". I was wondering if you could argue the reverse and that "there is no such thing as the individual" and only society (or the state as the embodiment of society) is real.

According to Marxist materialism everything in the consciousness of an individual is a reflection of the objective material world. Individual consciousness is only a "superstructure" on the basis of society and the social organisation of production. So society is primary and the individual is secondary and dependent on the former.

Putting it bluntly, everything in my consciousness from taste in food, music or art, my dreams when I sleep or day dreams when I am awake, my sexual fantasies and my political, religious and philosophical ideas have their origins in society and not from my own brain/mind. If I were crazy and suffering from hallucinations or delusions they remain social in character (i.e. If I think I'm napoleons or Jesus, I got the ideas of Jesus and napoleon from other people).

Free thought and free will cannot be said to exist (in a conventional sense) because neither thought nor will are independent of objective reality. Both thought and will are only free to the extent that we have "freedom of action" based on our knowledge of what is real and what is possible based on our finite powers within reality.

Can we therefore claim that the individual "exists" as an entity separate from society? What would it mean?

Feel free to challenge any of the points here as I am trying to figure out how to reason this out. :)

I think it's possible for an individual to exist outside of society, but in this day and age, only a rare few individuals have the skill and wherewithal to be able to do it. And even then, it's exceedingly difficult since there's no piece of land in the world which is considered unclaimed or unspoken for, even Antarctica. No matter where one goes in this world, one will always be under the jurisdiction of some "society."

Even those who consider themselves rugged individualists and survivalists, even they couldn't survive without society. Survivalists stockpile food grown by someone else. They stockpile weapons and ammunition built by someone else. They use technologies which someone else came up with. They learned to read and write in a language which others taught them.

"Individualism" is more of a philosophy based on a certain set of values. It does not describe reality, but it's the idea that if society creates the conditions for an individual to be free and happy, with a guaranteed set of individual rights, then that will improve the overall quality of life in society as a whole. Ideally, there would be a balance between the needs of society and the needs of the individual.

I think what we've had in recent decades is hyper-individualism, which takes the concept too far. It's also kind of an illusion, since the greatest advocates and practitioners of hyper-individualism are those who seem the most dependent upon society. Whatever one might say or do to express or assert their "individuality," one should ask: Would they be doing this thing if they were all alone in the wilderness hunting for food?

Some people talk about individual achievement or competition among individuals where someone might rise to the top and claim "I'm the best individual!" But even then, what's the point of competing and achieving victory, if there's no "society" around to recognize such individual achievements? People who want to express their individualism and "stand out among the crowd," where would they be without "the crowd" to look at them?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I would say that the boy who declared that the emperor has no clothes is truly a brave individual. If the individual does not exist, then what is it that stands against the dogma of the herd?
Exaustion of a narrative when faced with implacable, relentless facts?

As for the OP, have you heard of Anatta, @Laika?

The individual as such may or may not exist, but has ultimately very little significance.

But perhaps for that very reason there is a lot of myth of the individual running around and being lent a lot of prestige. In politics that manifests as populism (if you will forgive me for using that word). In history, as the Great Man Theory.

You may find it useful to learn some Anthropology. As areas of knowledge go, it is as resilient against the myth of the individual as politics is bound to promote that same myth.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Can we therefore claim that the individual "exists" as an entity separate from society? What would it mean?

We exist as individuals in a society, and have since the hunter-gatherer, nomadic days. Although it is possible to live cut off from others, most of us live in a world in which we are dependent on others such as people who produce our food and bring it to our home towns.

The two have to be considered together, because each such life is an individual life (organism) lived within and influenced by a surrounding society (population). They affect one another, so no, we cannot claim that such an individual exists as an entity separate from society if he or she lives among other people and interacts with them, but that doesn't mean the the individual is absorbed into the many and ceases to be an individual.

Interesting idea.
 

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
Here's a puzzle I'm mulling over. As Thatcher once said, "there is no such thing as society". I was wondering if you could argue the reverse and that "there is no such thing as the individual" and only society (or the state as the embodiment of society) is real.

According to Marxist materialism everything in the consciousness of an individual is a reflection of the objective material world. Individual consciousness is only a "superstructure" on the basis of society and the social organisation of production. So society is primary and the individual is secondary and dependent on the former.

Putting it bluntly, everything in my consciousness from taste in food, music or art, my dreams when I sleep or day dreams when I am awake, my sexual fantasies and my political, religious and philosophical ideas have their origins in society and not from my own brain/mind. If I were crazy and suffering from hallucinations or delusions they remain social in character (i.e. If I think I'm napoleons or Jesus, I got the ideas of Jesus and napoleon from other people).

Free thought and free will cannot be said to exist (in a conventional sense) because neither thought nor will are independent of objective reality. Both thought and will are only free to the extent that we have "freedom of action" based on our knowledge of what is real and what is possible based on our finite powers within reality.

Can we therefore claim that the individual "exists" as an entity separate from society? What would it mean?

Feel free to challenge any of the points here as I am trying to figure out how to reason this out. :)
I have a degree that is mostly in the social sciences, in which the individualism vs. collectivism debate is a big thing

I've been taught that "the individual" and "society" are "mutually constitutive" - that they each make each other up and cannot really be separated - the individual is shaped by social things, and social things emerge from individuals, interacting with other individuals

So, in answer to your question, I'd say that it's impossible to separate the individual from society as they are in a complex and round-about way the same thing - humanity, described on different levels
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
As statements go, Thatcher's is at least puzzling, at worst cynical and stupid.

If there is no society, why on Earth would anyone listen to what she has to say, or care for what she thinks?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Here's a puzzle I'm mulling over. As Thatcher once said, "there is no such thing as society". I was wondering if you could argue the reverse and that "there is no such thing as the individual" and only society (or the state as the embodiment of society) is real.

According to Marxist materialism everything in the consciousness of an individual is a reflection of the objective material world. Individual consciousness is only a "superstructure" on the basis of society and the social organisation of production. So society is primary and the individual is secondary and dependent on the former.

Putting it bluntly, everything in my consciousness from taste in food, music or art, my dreams when I sleep or day dreams when I am awake, my sexual fantasies and my political, religious and philosophical ideas have their origins in society and not from my own brain/mind. If I were crazy and suffering from hallucinations or delusions they remain social in character (i.e. If I think I'm napoleons or Jesus, I got the ideas of Jesus and napoleon from other people).

Free thought and free will cannot be said to exist (in a conventional sense) because neither thought nor will are independent of objective reality. Both thought and will are only free to the extent that we have "freedom of action" based on our knowledge of what is real and what is possible based on our finite powers within reality.

Can we therefore claim that the individual "exists" as an entity separate from society? What would it mean?

Feel free to challenge any of the points here as I am trying to figure out how to reason this out. :)

Basic systems theory would say that the individual (the part) and the society (the whole) both exist and are in constant relationship to one another. It is an endless debate as to whether one is more real than the other...and pointless. Both are real.

The agency of the individual is in large measure determined by the society. An individual can spark a revolution that can fundamentally transform a society. A society can strip away all the agency of an individual.

This is not a problem so much as a reality at all levels of the physical Universe.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
This question is not different from asking if it is possible for an organism to exist without the environment as "society" (or community as ecologists would put it) is a subset of the environment.

The answer to that question is a resounding no. At no point has any organism existed without an environment in the apparent world. The otherworlds are another matter entirely, but I don't get the impression we're meant to introduce that complex beast into the discussion.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Here's a puzzle I'm mulling over. As Thatcher once said, "there is no such thing as society". I was wondering if you could argue the reverse and that "there is no such thing as the individual" and only society (or the state as the embodiment of society) is real.

According to Marxist materialism everything in the consciousness of an individual is a reflection of the objective material world. Individual consciousness is only a "superstructure" on the basis of society and the social organisation of production. So society is primary and the individual is secondary and dependent on the former.

Putting it bluntly, everything in my consciousness from taste in food, music or art, my dreams when I sleep or day dreams when I am awake, my sexual fantasies and my political, religious and philosophical ideas have their origins in society and not from my own brain/mind. If I were crazy and suffering from hallucinations or delusions they remain social in character (i.e. If I think I'm napoleons or Jesus, I got the ideas of Jesus and napoleon from other people).

Free thought and free will cannot be said to exist (in a conventional sense) because neither thought nor will are independent of objective reality. Both thought and will are only free to the extent that we have "freedom of action" based on our knowledge of what is real and what is possible based on our finite powers within reality.

Can we therefore claim that the individual "exists" as an entity separate from society? What would it mean?

Feel free to challenge any of the points here as I am trying to figure out how to reason this out. :)

I suspect it is a little more organic than that. Each shaping the other. Such that it may be pointless to divide them and assign priorities.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Can we therefore claim that the individual "exists" as an entity separate from society?
  • Different than? Yes.
  • Separate from?
    • Completely and permanently from birth to grave? I think not because, IMO, the individual's existence would be short-lived.
    • Briefly in society, in the beginning, and completely separate from human society at a self-sufficient age? Possibly, but with substantial "dehumanization" as, IMO, is justified by several recorded instances: e.g. "Victor, the wild boy of Aveyron", and other known feral children.
    • Consequences of voluntary asceticism are better known. Results range from severely aberrant behavior (cf. the homeless) to highly "spiritualised/enlightened" (cf. Gautama Buddha").
Initially, I thought the OP was addressing "the One and the Many" philosophical 'problem', but I read a little more about that and think that's a completely different matter. However, there is line of thought which I follow that might be considered a different version of "the One and the Many" problem using my personal worldview as follows:
  • The Cosmos is boundless, eternal and consists of stuff moving through Space.
    • Stuff is a set. The elements of that set are indivisible parts, each occupying a different point in Space.
      • A human society is a subset of stuff. In the Cosmos, there are, currently more than one human societies.
  • A human individual is a subset of the Cosmos.
    • When the individual is in a society and interacts with other members of that society, they are a subset of that society. When they aren't, they aren't.
    • An individual is unable to survive long when separated from any society.
And that's as far as I've gotten so far.
 
Last edited:
Top