Ethical individualism, epistemological collectivism

 

I am ethically an individualist, but epistemologically a collectivist.  

I have written about egos and egoism before - broadly, I am in favor, but I also think that the ego can become an obstacle in its own projects - as I like to put it, the ego isn't selfish enough - and for this reason, I call myself "egoish".  I don't think there is anything given or automatic about individualism.  I think that the ego is a construction: mostly a social construction, though also, to an important extent, a personal construction.  But I also think that that's a good thing.  We should construct egos.  We have a responsibility to construct the ego as a locus of responsibility.  It's a good thing to individuate.  It's a good thing to build yourself, creatively, to develop strength and self-possession, or, to put it in that one beautiful word: composure.  So yes, ethically, I stand by individualism.  

But, on the other hand - and precisely because of what I have said so far - I am also an epistemological collectivist.  It is in my own rational self-interest to try to understand the truth, and to contextualize the truth in a way that is honest with myself, even if it hurts.  And the truth is that individuals just don't matter all that much.  Anecdotal evidence is something - it isn't nothing - but it is generally the worst kind of evidence.  It's a hard pill to swallow, but reality cannot be comprehended as a series of isolated stories, however heartwarming that would be; rather, reality should be grasped in grand, global, cold, mathematical, statistical tendencies.  This is the scientific way - which is not guaranteed to reveal the whole truth, but which, at the very least, is not a way for us to lie to ourselves.  Ultimately, our contextualization should not even be limited to the human, but should encompass the entire ecology and the entire cosmos.

Notice: this is the opposite orientation to that of a vast number of people in the world. Many people are ethically collectivist, and epistemologically individualist. For some people ethics simply means altruism: ethical behavior is that which is done out of concern completely for other people, and not at all for oneself. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hard
Read more

Liquefactionism

Image
“To Dissolve Man” An Investigation into the Liquefactionist Party In the 21st century, we will have to deal both with the odious Liquefactionists and with a confused and reactionary anti-Liquefactionism, which is far more apparent and obviously horrifying. I borrow the term “Liquefactionist Party” from William S. Burroughs, who writes about the Liquefactionists in the “Parties of Interzone” section of Naked Lunch - which, as a political policy guide, is unmatched in its insight and accuracy.  He writes that, “ The Liquefaction program involves the eventual merging of everyone into One Man by a process of protoplasmic absorption. ”  He goes on: “It will be immediately clear that the Liquefaction Party is, except for one man, entirely composed of dupes, it not being clear until the final absorption who is whose dupe.” Paradoxically, Burroughs goes on to tell us that “Liquefactionists in general know what the score is.”  If they know the score, how can they be dupes?  Perhaps thi
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more