Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OdiousOutlaw wrote

I'd argue that the "rugged individualism" championed by the West is quite different from Egoism (and anarchist philosophy). Rugged Individualism posits that an individual is totally self-reliant and independent; outright rejecting the notion that assistance from external actors (usually by peers or the state) is needed or even good. Anarchists (both social and individualist) by contrast, outright state that cooperation among peers is far more beneficial to the individual for various reasons.

Rugged individualism is far too moralistic, capitalistic, and (ironically) collectivist to have influenced egoism, far too compatible with capitalism to influence Anarchism. It is a Right-Wing concept, rhetoric involving it being pro-work, meritocratic horseshit that places a moral duty on the individual to not "burden others" regardless of the interest of the individual. It's a phantasm in every possible sense, even the most simplistic definition of individualist anarchism (Anything that attempts to exert force on an individual is an authority to be destroyed) is incompatible with it, as the tenants of rugged individualism are dependent on the collectivist economics of capitalism.

But I live in the West, so do with that as you will.

4

Ennui OP wrote

Yes! However, the theme of rugged individualism is a bit different from the more general anthropological individualism. Anthropological individualism (at least in the source I was reading) is the tendency towards supporting the individual over the group, whereas collectivist societies tend to support the group over the individual. And, if you study people's responses, that tendency is reflected in their views towards universal situations. The way I see it, people in individualistic cultures should more readily see the group as a construct, and people in collectivist cultures may assign the group a greater identity, meshing their own identity with it.

I don't know if this helps, but I'm viewing this as similar to the difference between egoism and the traditional Hegelian dialectic (at least as described by Lenin). To an egoist, the individual will is the one important subject, and every identity beyond it is a construct read through an individual. But, from the standpoint of a dialectic, the individual is the society, the society is the individual, each is the negation of each other, and (through their interplay) they form one body—the dialectic. The individualist might tend towards egoistic conceptions of identity, and the collectivist might tend towards dialectical identity.

I hav big braen.

0

OdiousOutlaw wrote

However, the theme of rugged individualism is a bit different from the more general anthropological individualism. Anthropological individualism (at least in the source I was reading) is the tendency towards supporting the individual over the group, whereas collectivist societies tend to support the group over the individual.

Right. I don't see where your objection is.

The West's rugged individualism isn't individualism in the Anthropological sense either; as I've already explained the dependence that rugged individualism has on the Capitalist demands that the many must forsake their interests for the benefit of the few, which is a direct contradiction with your definition of Anthropological individualism as well, since the overall system of Capitalism requires a collective-based morality in order to guilt-trip anyone with any anti-work or individualist tendency. The "individualism" spouted by Western culture is nominal, the overall view on individualism in any other sense by Western culture can be summed up as "it's selfish and therefore bad", it's opposition to individualism can be seen whenever the virtues of self-sacrifice, conformity, moralism, and pseudo-pacifism make themselves apparent.

Western "hyper-individualism" has no influence on Egoism or Anarchist philosophy, it fails at even supporting the individual over the group, it's far too focused on dominating other cultures or eliminating the "deviant" desires of individuals to be anything other than a collectivist project.

You asked to what extent anarchist philosophy (particularly Egoism) is just the refuse of Western "hyper-individualism" and I'm saying that there is no real connection between the two. If anything, I'd say that Individualist Anarchism was born because Western Individualist anarchists recognized that the "individualism" spouted by the culture that they hated was a sham and that Individualist anarchism was born from the desire for actual individualism, which is probably a bit closer to what you defined as Anthropological individualism.

In any case, I think you agree with me on at least a few points based on how you worded your response? I'm just posting this to clarify my argument because I'm not really sure what your objecting to (your use of "however" in the first sentence makes me think that there is some point of contention).

1

Ennui OP wrote

My contention wasn't much of a contention. I was thinking in terms of how anthropological individualism/collectivism affects our reasoning processes, rather than how the historical development of either contrasts with egoism. Regardless, you've been super helpful, so thanks. If egoism in the West developed as a rebuttal of shallow individualism, then I could see a similar non-Western reasoning process develop as a rebuttal to shallow collectivism.

1