/r/iam14andthisdeep

Accept that your nobody and free yourself from other people.

Nonsense. Self-knowledge and introspection is a valid "way of knowing" that doesn't fall under the category of science in any meaningful way (introspection is essentially the opposite of observable empirical evidence). I also think its possible to encode or express truths about human experience in literature/poetry/art that isn't possible via the scientific method. Its also not clear that know-how (as opposed to know-that) is necessarily scientific.

That said, the accusation of "scientism" is almost always overblown and misapplied, and science certainly is our best and most reliable way of understanding the physical world. But it does have limitations, just like any other human intellectual activity, and there are methods of acquiring certain types of knowledge in areas where scientific methodology is less successful or even impossible.

Wait...but you just...fuck

In our world? Sure. But in a state of nature without our level of technology, no. I'm not saying this to be a dick. That was just the reality of things.

Nope, I haven’t read it, but maybe I’ll check it out. Personally I don’t think anarcho-communism scales to millions or billions of people. We need other systems for large scale organizations, but those aren’t the systems we adapted for evolutionarily. I think this disconnect helps to explain much of our social malaise.

perhaps

Maybe you've read "The Dawn of Everything" by the two David's? At least one of them is an anarchist (I assume as result of his archaeology studies).

> Surrounded by so many other entities that do look and sound similar to myself, my quest for individuality - should I choose to accept it - is going to necessarily involve asserting ways in which I am not like them. It's more difficult, and requires more digging (or more bullshitting, more likely,) but is it different in kind?

See, I don't see it as seeking such, but observing such. That analysing similarities is inherently also analysing differences.

Let's say we could break down all features into a binary A or B. And that there were only 33 distinguished features to even note. So YOU may be made up of ABBBAABABAAABBBABBAAAABBBABBAAABB. If A and B have equal odds of existing, there is 1 individual out of the current 800 billion people on earth with such a makeup (based on odds). Or more accurately stated, there are more than 800 billion potential makeups with equal odds of occuring.

So if we can also identify that many features aren't determined by a binary, and that there are many millions more features than 33, even if odds are greater than 50% that people match up, it would seem to reason we will be unique, even while sharing similarities with some people in some areas. Because it involves also having differences with others. If you're concluding you are like another, there's likely "others" that are not. That you are like A, because B is something to be observed as something distinct.

Break down something as binary as sex. Do you not think fertilitity, size/shape/appearance of sexual characteritics, hormone levels, how such impacts development of physical features, specific social pressures on one's sex, etc. create entirely different experiences even among a group of males or females? I think it's pretty ignorant to limit your observation to male or female. I think it's only proper to view all the things that people can observe. I simply can't accept that people are naturally simply blind to differences and that only an acceptance of individualism opens one's eyes to such.

> It's just easier to point at a rock and say, "Welp, I'm not like that. I've got my own thing going on."

What I'm trying to argue is that "sadness" isn't ONE thing. That just because you've felt sadness doesn't mean you know how another actually feels even while expressing similar symptoms you did when you were sad. You can grasp a level of understanding, but you aren't the same as them in that capacity. Individualism isn't about denying similarities, it's denying being the same. That just because two people are "white/male/attractive/tall/outgoing/etc." doesn't mean they have experienced the same things as many other factors come into play for lived experiences and thus one's "identity".

> This guy's notion of individuality starts to sound more like a way to sort, catalog, and track. The people around us, our relationships to them, and even our similarities to them are coordinates and/or reference points.

And I'm accepting that. I just think categorizing oneself to another is a large assumption of others. Where even one's association to certain categorizations and labels is a unique personal perception. So what exactly am I claiming I share with others and what footing do I have to state such?

EDIT: When we limit our distinctions it allows for greater pockets of "sameness". Which inherently is oppositional to those of differences. This is what "contributes" to intolerance and inequality showcased by discrimination/segregation. When people identify amongst a group, then they can leverage the group to attack other groups. When you feel you are defined by such limiting structures, it creates a desire to "defend" and preserve that identity.

I'd just like to say that's a fucking beautiful and enlightening title. Well done.

How would this account for societies that practice ritual human sacrifice and cannibalism? If manpower was so precious wouldn't we not observe these norms among low technology societies?

Collectivists who dedicate their existences to defining others are certainly free to do so but I'm entirely capable of defining myself, thank you very much.

Cogito ergo sum.

[deleted]

I don't understand this kind of argument at all. What does being self-aware of your own traits and interests have to do with being like everyone else? I'd argue most people have scarily little awareness of their own traits and quirks. Infinitely more unique to confidently say what you know about yourself and acknowledge there are things you don't rather than hoping your relationships to others will teach you more about yourself. They often do, sure, but one thing that makes relationships easier and more worthwhile is when the participants know who they are and can establish clear personalities and boundaries.

I'm inclined to agree with you that this guy's premises are largely misapprehensions. Once that's established, I'm not even sure it's necessary to argue further down the chain.

That being said, I think it's trivially easy to construct a competing thesis. If I were the only thing in my perceptual universe that looked or sounded anything like myself, I would feel pretty darn unique. My individuality would be a given. Surrounded by so many other entities that do look and sound similar to myself, my quest for individuality - should I choose to accept it - is going to necessarily involve asserting ways in which I am not like them. It's more difficult, and requires more digging (or more bullshitting, more likely,) but is it different in kind? It's just easier to point at a rock and say, "Welp, I'm not like that. I've got my own thing going on."

This guy's notion of individuality starts to sound more like a way to sort, catalog, and track. The people around us, our relationships to them, and even our similarities to them are coordinates and/or reference points.

[deleted]

Of course, because your character is only tested through interactions with the people around you.

> Far from delivering on the moral imperatives it claims -tolerance and equality –

No, it has never claimed that. Acknowledgement of differences, doesn't at all set a value system. Differences will create varying value. But how that's at all assessed is up to society. Individualism offers the idea that you can offer something that someone else can't. That you are unique. It doesn't propose what you can offer someone else will desire. And certainly not how it will compare to other offerings. Because that would require a compliance set on others.

Individualism is about being able to respect yourself regardless of others. Difference, nor inequality, nor intolerance are inherently negative features. They are often required to form any basis of a societal structure. What that society will value, given our varying individualistic desires, will create varying levels of value. To believe that there can exist an "equality" of value of a person as observed by others completely denies the philosphy of individualism. And instead forces some level of compliance on how people must perceive others which denies their own self.

> individualism has contributed to a widespread inequality of expression of agency and values.

It's only "contributed" to such as not being barrier to such. Individualism as a philosphy is a recognition that people are individuals. That different perceptions, experiences, etc. inherently create differences where any such value system that assesses such differences will be unequal. Not that inequality is bad, but that it's simply a function of the natural variance. Just as the cold isn't bad, but will harm an environment that doesn't value it. That no ecosystem is best, but they offer something different.

> But it is built on an incoherent sense of what makes us who we are.

No. Individualism isn't meant as a structure to state a "sense of who you are". It's not meant to be expressive toward others as as a social identity. Individualists can still relate to societal classifications as to illustrate a shared feature. It's simply the aspect of a "self" not being confined to any single label. That one's "identity" can't be shared, but certain elements of preference or behavior can. That you can't express to others "WHO you are", but you can explain varying features that make up you in a way for others to understand. If someone asked you "Who are you", how would you answer?

> But what defines a person is not their distinction from all others, but rather their intersectional connection with countless others.

And how do you claim a connection with others? Will others accept your claim? To claim some "intersectionality" you'd seemingly need to use your own perception to conclude exactly how others have arrived at their own understanding. You can ASK and VERIFY, but others many often reject your claim of association. So what then?

Sure, finding the commonality is how we can explain to others ourselves in a way they can then process and understand. But that's a process. That involves discussion. It involves explanations. It requires the unique, individual touch that a self-identity claim to a group label does not. It will be discovered that the "intersectionality connection" isn't the same, but enough similarities to grasp an understanding can be conveyed. And that's individualism. That the connections don't define you, but rather are used as a vehicle in a vague attempt to define yourself to others.

One thing I do feel, the more I try to understand the people around me, the more I understand about myself.

“Easy, Paradox, we are all on the same team.”

They should read the Epic of Gilgamesh. Will blow all of those ideas away.

In short, a person has no sense of uniqueness by themselves. Hence the paradox.

[deleted]

I often feel as if I am simply an amalgamation of those I know.

The paradox lies in this fact: Our individuality is defined in our minds by the intersections of our individuality with others. To define all the things that make you you a person, one needs to define all these things through a lens of the person. It's a catch 22 where you can't define yourself without considering yourself as part of another whole.