Individualism (primacy of the individual) vs Collectivism (primacy of the group)

[BugI02]

Read the literature. It wasn't identity they were fighting for. And "accuse" sounds an awful lot like attack, which it was not. Just stating that you have no evidence that identity was a prominent feature of the Revolution. And the context is at the macro level. The founding of the US from the revolution through the passing of the Constitution. I don't disagree that at an individual level people have identities, with their families, friends, comrades, religion, and their nation. People get close-nit when things are on the line and they tend to forget identities and work towards the common goal. I'm not disputing the role of identity at the individual soldier level. But that's not what we're rally talking about.

I'm disputing that it was all about identity, which is what you seem to be saying. You've not given any evidence that it was. Yet what all the literature talks about is principle. That was the basis of the constitution and how our government is structured.

I'm open to being wrong. But connect some dots. Make a rational case. Show some literature which makes the nation's founding all about identity and not principle. Something.

Dude, I went back and skimmed through this (you owe me 30 minutes). You mentioned Hobbes and Locke (in the same 'breath') and proceeded to stipulate that principle is greater than identity. I've simply said 'no, it isn't'

If I've missed it, please point me to where you have outlined the facts in support of your position i.e.: the principles that motivated men to join the continental army and take on the British. I'm not likely to read Locke, but I have read von Clausewitz if that helps

Maybe if you tried supplying both parts up front, as in "Here is what I believe and here's the evidence that leads me to believe it" we wouldn't arrive at these impasses. Sometimes I get the feeling that you think "No taxation without representation" or "Remember the Maine" or "54-40 or fight" is an appeal to the intellect rather than an appeal to a common identity. I'm not saying people lack principles, I'm not saying identity ūber alles; I'm saying war is based less on principle than you think and more on emotion

I'll wager that the events at Lexington and Concord had more to do with rousing the colonists to fight than any writing by any philosophers, that the shelling of Belgrade had more to do with the outbreak of WWI than the death of Franz Ferdinand, that the invasion of Poland had more to do with the outbreak of WWII than Kristallnacht and the plight of the Jews. People go to war when they are backed into a corner and run out of alternatives. When the winners write the history, they whitewash the bloody truth with high minded principles. The people who espouse those principles are seldom the ones doing the dying, the ones at the pointed end are motivated to protect kith and kin and comrades in arms

 

[BugI02]

Will you take Washington's word for it?

From Washington's letter to John Hancock 25 September 1776

When Men are irritated, & the Passions inflamed, they fly hastily, and chearfully to Arms, but after the first emotions are over to expect, among such People as compose the bulk of an Army, that they are influenced by any other principles than those of Interest, is to look for what never did, & I fear never will happen; the Congress will deceive themselves therefore if they expect it.
A Soldier reasoned with upon the goodness of the cause he is engaged in and the inestimable rights he is contending for, hears you with patience, & acknowledges the truth of your observations; but adds, that it is of no more Importance to him than others—The Officer makes you the same reply, with this further remark, that his pay will not support him, and he cannot ruin himself and Family to serve his Country, when every member of the community is equally Interested and benefitted by his Labours—The few therefore, who act upon Principles of disinterestedness, are, comparitively speaking—no more than a drop in the Ocean.

 

[jamil]

Uhh. Context? And gosh that's a long letter. And he didn't even have a keyboard. He wrote that with a ****ing ink and blotter.

The soundness of the principle motivated them to go off to war. But after enduring many hardships, lack of pay, lack of basic needs, principle isn't enough to keep them going. They could be back home earning a living for their families. C'mon *****es. Pony up. Washington is pleading for resources. This isn't about identity.

 

[jamil]

Dude, I went back and skimmed through this (you owe me 30 minutes). You mentioned Hobbes and Locke (in the same 'breath') and proceeded to stipulate that principle is greater than identity. I've simply said 'no, it isn't'

If I've missed it, please point me to where you have outlined the facts in support of your position i.e.: the principles that motivated men to join the continental army and take on the British. I'm not likely to read Locke, but I have read von Clausewitz if that helps

Maybe if you tried supplying both parts up front, as in "Here is what I believe and here's the evidence that leads me to believe it" we wouldn't arrive at these impasses. Sometimes I get the feeling that you think "No taxation without representation" or "Remember the Maine" or "54-40 or fight" is an appeal to the intellect rather than an appeal to a common identity. I'm not saying people lack principles, I'm not saying identity ūber alles; I'm saying war is based less on principle than you think and more on emotion

I'll wager that the events at Lexington and Concord had more to do with rousing the colonists to fight than any writing by any philosophers, that the shelling of Belgrade had more to do with the outbreak of WWI than the death of Franz Ferdinand, that the invasion of Poland had more to do with the outbreak of WWII than Kristallnacht and the plight of the Jews. People go to war when they are backed into a corner and run out of alternatives. When the winners write the history, they whitewash the bloody truth with high minded principles. The people who espouse those principles are seldom the ones doing the dying, the ones at the pointed end are motivated to protect kith and kin and comrades in arms

I did the explanation. Do you want me to supply you with the sundry documents on principle from the period? I mean I can. But that's like a tautology.

And yes, I did mention Locke and Hobbs in the same sentence, but I believe also in that sentence I said something to the effect of, to the extent they agreed. They both were of the same opinion that individual rights are essentially natural rights, and not conferred by the group. Group identity does not give you natural rights. You, as an individual, have those regardless of your group identity. No one cares about group identity until someone is threatening it, or you're using it to oppress other people. Kinda like the left wing identitarians are doing to people to the right of them right now. And also how some right wing identitarians historically have used it to oppress minorities.

 

[BugI02]

Uhh. Context? And gosh that's a long letter. And he didn't even have a keyboard. He wrote that with a ****ing ink and blotter.

The soundness of the principle motivated them to go off to war. But after enduring many hardships, lack of pay, lack of basic needs, principle isn't enough to keep them going. They could be back home earning a living for their families. C'mon *****es. Pony up. Washington is pleading for resources. This isn't about identity.

Neither is it about the lion's share of those who actually fought being motivated by high principles. Washington himself stating that "When men are irritated, & the passions inflamed, they fly hastily, and chearfully to Arms ..." is not exactly backing your assertion that principle rather than passion motivated them even in the beginning. I take it as bolstering my premise that the passions of the moment have more to do with conflict than the high minded principles hagiographers like to assert (after the fact) were the driving forces at historical moments, and who would better know the right of it than Washington himself. How many signatories of the Declaration actually picked up a musket and fought?

Nine

Patrick ("Give me Liberty, or give me death") Henry apparently didn't mean death by live fire. He never picked up a musket

It pre-figures every war we've ever had except perhaps the 2nd. The people that do the dying are never the ones cheer-leading for war

"Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die" Charge of the light brigade, Pickett's Charge, Omaha beach, Chosin reservoir. If you could ask the dead, do you really think they would tell you they fought for anything you could find in the pages of your text books

 

[nonobaddog]

But it was the tyrannical British violating their principles that provided the irritation and inflamed their passions. It sure wasn’t because the British violated their identity by calling them Korean or anything like that. It was their principles that gave cause to fighting back.




Either that or too many brewskys.

 

[jamil]

Neither is it about the lion's share of those who actually fought being motivated by high principles. Washington himself stating that "When men are irritated, & the passions inflamed, they fly hastily, and chearfully to Arms ..." is not exactly backing your assertion that principle rather than passion motivated them even in the beginning. I take it as bolstering my premise that the passions of the moment have more to do with conflict than the high minded principles hagiographers like to assert (after the fact) were the driving forces at historical moments, and who would better know the right of it than Washington himself. How many signatories of the Declaration actually picked up a musket and fought?

Nine

Patrick ("Give me Liberty, or give me death") Henry apparently didn't mean death by live fire. He never picked up a musket

It pre-figures every war we've ever had except perhaps the 2nd. The people that do the dying are never the ones cheer-leading for war

"Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die" Charge of the light brigade, Pickett's Charge, Omaha beach, Chosin reservoir. If you could ask the dead, do you really think they would tell you they fought for anything you could find in the pages of your text books

Let's be clear about the context. Step back to the origin of this discussion. I said I have faith in the system. Then explained the system I have faith in is the system that the founders based on the primacy of individual rights. Then someone took issue with that. And here we are. Yes, rank and file soldiers of the Revolutionary War, at least some of them, went into hastily based on their principles, then likely, the blind idealism war off after having missed some meals, proper clothing, adequate shelter, descent equipment, etcetera. But they didn't write the declaration of independence, the preamble, the constitution, nor did they participate in the debate over which principles win to form the nation. Non of those documents feature "identity", instead they include concepts like all men are created equal, notwithstanding the failures living up to those principles.

I think we're not likely to agree on this. I think I've laid out a reasonable case for principle > identity, least of which is that we have to override identity by choice to live principle. The Enlightenment showed us that, without which the West wouldn't be any different from anyone else, and we might still be fighting real ass violent wars over identity conflicts. So we can choose to override the evolved instinctive identity based behavior, or we can choose to override it with a better way.

The left wing bat **** crazy identity politics peddling progressives have decided that reverting back to tribal kinds of identity parsing is better than the better way which has resulted in the most prosperous success that any nation on the earth has ever had. Is there a sort of identity wrapped up in the collection of principles? Yes. But it's not more important than the principles.

 

[jamil]

I dunno. Does anyone find this conversation useful? I'm engaged in it because i like to talk about ideas. But I'm not the one consuming it. It's mostly been me representing the pro-individualist positions.

I sense the discussion isn't going to result in any resolution, other than agreeing to disagree in the end. I think my position on the primacy of principle (in particualr individual rights) over identity has been reasoned logically and sufficiently. The question in my mind is why identity should be considered greater than principle. I don't think it's been answered in a way which logically follows a premise.

 

[jamil]

But it was the tyrannical British violating their principles that provided the irritation and inflamed their passions. It sure wasn’t because the British violated their identity by calling them Korean or anything like that. It was their principles that gave cause to fighting back.




Either that or too many brewskys.

Bug has a point that principle isn't sufficient by itself. And I'm not arguing that identity plays no role at all. We're wired for tribal identities innately. But that's for a specific evolutionary cause: to pass on one's genes. Tribal identity is optimized for conflict. It likely played a role at least a little in the Revolutionary War, among the rank and file. But that hasn't been the discussion. Rank and file soldiers were a small part of the whole revolution start to finish. The bottom line, the system we have is based on principle, and not identity.

It's not surprising that the West has had more peace the more it could minimize the effect of identity. Principles like the primacy of individual rights is why. I suggest that if the left and the right dropped the importance of Identity from 11 to say 2 or 3, the conflict between the sides would drop proportionally. It would no longer be necessary to treat the other as an enemy. It would no longer be thought necessary to kick the enemy out.

But, both sides insist that identity > principle. So here we are in a culture war. Note: I blame it way more on the left than the right. There aren't enough hard core right wing identitarians to make a big difference. But a much larger portion of the left is consistently pro-identity.

 

[BugI02]

But it was the tyrannical British violating their principles that provided the irritation and inflamed their passions. It sure wasn’t because the British violated their identity by calling them Korean or anything like that. It was their principles that gave cause to fighting back.




Either that or too many brewskys.

Having been forewarned (Revere et al) why were there only 77 militiamen at Lexington Green to meet 700 British? Yet when the British spilled blood there, an estimated several thousand militia and minutemen harried them all the way from Concord back to Boston, with them abandoning equipment during the retreat and taking ~250 casualties

I'm saying the case can be made that what was driving the much fiercer fighting spirit evinced after blood had been shed was passion and emotion, not some cold intellectual fealty to a set of principles. I'm arguing that quite often the accepted story of learned men driven by the wisdom of the sages is guilding of the lilies on the graves of those who do the fighting

 

[BugI02]

Bug has a point that principle isn't sufficient by itself. And I'm not arguing that identity plays no role at all. We're wired for tribal identities innately. But that's for a specific evolutionary cause: to pass on one's genes. Tribal identity is optimized for conflict. It likely played a role at least a little in the Revolutionary War, among the rank and file. But that hasn't been the discussion. Rank and file soldiers were a small part of the whole revolution start to finish. The bottom line, the system we have is based on principle, and not identity.

It's not surprising that the West has had more peace the more it could minimize the effect of identity. Principles like the primacy of individual rights is why. I suggest that if the left and the right dropped the importance of Identity from 11 to say 2 or 3, the conflict between the sides would drop proportionally. It would no longer be necessary to treat the other as an enemy. It would no longer be thought necessary to kick the enemy out.

But, both sides insist that identity > principle. So here we are in a culture war. Note: I blame it way more on the left than the right. There aren't enough hard core right wing identitarians to make a big difference. But a much larger portion of the left is consistently pro-identity.

I think you're correct, we will not resolve much. I'm certainly not arguing that passion and emotion are equivalent to identity, either. I simply don't think principle 'is greater' than identity - that it can overrule identity - until cooler heads can prevail. To my mind, principle doesn't drive the war, but it might govern the terms of the peace and the reconstruction

But the way I see it; hard-working, self-sufficient man who cares for and protects his family is an identity. It ties in with your natural rights ideas, but its not something I do because I read Locke or Hobbes (or learned discussions of they're work) because I did not. It is something I do because it is who I am - which seems the very essence of an identity. You seem too caught up in the idea that identity is like a suit of clothes, something you can change when it suits you. I guess some people can do that but I don't think most can, at least not the ones worth knowing

Gender fluid, woke, SJW - those aren't identities, they're affectations. Role-playing. To me your identity is who you really are, not what you identify with. In the breech, if you choose to run from battle, you are a coward -that will be your identity regardless of what you identify as

The finer points and higher principles of a West Point education were important at Appomattox courthouse, not so much at Sailor's Creek

 

[nonobaddog]

Having been forewarned (Revere et al) why were there only 77 militiamen at Lexington Green to meet 700 British? Yet when the British spilled blood there, an estimated several thousand militia and minutemen harried them all the way from Concord back to Boston, with them abandoning equipment during the retreat and taking ~250 casualties

I'm saying the case can be made that what was driving the much fiercer fighting spirit evinced after blood had been shed was passion and emotion, not some cold intellectual fealty to a set of principles. I'm arguing that quite often the accepted story of learned men driven by the wisdom of the sages is guilding of the lilies on the graves of those who do the fighting

You seem to limiting principles to some lofty philosophical perch. That may be fine for the argument but it ain't real. Everybody has principles that affect their behavior, not just cold learned wise sages. If you kick my dog, I'll kick your ass. It's just the principal of the thing. When the British spilled blood it violated their principles and they were not going to stand for it. Emotion, while playing a role at first, is too short lived to be the real driving force for an extended stand against those violating ones principles.

 

[BugI02]

So what 'principles' underlay Ottoman Turkey v Armenians or Bosnian Serbs v Muslims or Hutu v Tutsi, since emotion is too short lived to be a real driving force?

"Essentally combat is an expression of hostile feelings. But in the large-scale combat that we call war hostile feelings often have become merely hostile intentions. At any rate, there are usually no hostile feelings between individuals. Yet such emotions can never be completely absent from war. Modern wars are seldom fought without hatred between nations; this serves as a more or less substitute for the hatred between individuals. Even when there is no natural hatred and no animosity to start with, the fighting itself will stir up hostile feelings: violence committed on superior orders will stir up the desire for revenge and retaliation against the perpetrator rather than against the powers that ordered the action. It is only human (or animal, if you like), but it is a fact."

 

[nonobaddog]

So what 'principles' underlay Ottoman Turkey v Armenians or Bosnian Serbs v Muslims or Hutu v Tutsi, since emotion is too short lived to be a real driving force?

"Essentally combat is an expression of hostile feelings. But in the large-scale combat that we call war hostile feelings often have become merely hostile intentions. At any rate, there are usually no hostile feelings between individuals. Yet such emotions can never be completely absent from war. Modern wars are seldom fought without hatred between nations; this serves as a more or less substitute for the hatred between individuals. Even when there is no natural hatred and no animosity to start with, the fighting itself will stir up hostile feelings: violence committed on superior orders will stir up the desire for revenge and retaliation against the perpetrator rather than against the powers that ordered the action. It is only human (or animal, if you like), but it is a fact."

I don't know any of those people but I was in the Army in 1970-2 and saw a lot of guys go to Vietnam (I was sent to Germany) and they didn't have much emotion or hatred. However they did have principles like Duty and Honor and staying alive.


I think maybe we could look at the same whatever thing and you would see emotion and I would see principles. Some semantics involved here too. Kind of like a hammer looks and something and says 'pound it' while a screwdriver looks at the same thing and says 'screw it'.

 

[BugI02]

I don't know any of those people but I was in the Army in 1970-2 and saw a lot of guys go to Vietnam (I was sent to Germany) and they didn't have much emotion or hatred. However they did have principles like Duty and Honor and staying alive.


I think maybe we could look at the same whatever thing and you would see emotion and I would see principles. Some semantics involved here too. Kind of like a hammer looks and something and says 'pound it' while a screwdriver looks at the same thing and says 'screw it'.

I quite totally agree. I guess where I'm really going was those characteristics were most likely taught father to son, and were part of what I consider each man's identity - as I said, who he really is. When somebody brings up Hobbes or Locke, I am given the impression they think those values are instilled by reading books. IMO such authors may give cogent formulation to an idea but seldom give inspiration to what wasn't already there

 

[BugI02]

I get the impression that jamil thinks Batman is Bruce Wayne, and not the other way around

 

[jamil]

I quite totally agree. I guess where I'm really going was those characteristics were most likely taught father to son, and were part of what I consider each man's identity - as I said, who he really is. When somebody brings up Hobbes or Locke, I am given the impression they think those values are instilled by reading books. IMO such authors may give cogent formulation to an idea but seldom give inspiration to what wasn't already there

Hobbs and Locke and others of the same period changed society. That’s the level I’m talking about.

Hard working, responsible, self sufficient, aren’t identities as much as they are good character traits. But people can wrap those traits into an identity, sure. Also many identities share the same traits. Whether you identify with white or black or Mexican or European, or Asian, people have those traits. Not everyone in every identity shares them. But it’s common enough.

 

[jamil]

I get the impression that jamil thinks Batman is Bruce Wayne, and not the other way around

Batman and Bruce are the same person.




Seriously, Batman is the personality Bruce Wayne wants to be but can’t. I thought the Nolan trilogy brought out that aspect of the relationship very well. Though I think it failed to get the personality of Batman right. Dark knight did better, but I wish they’d have emphasized the worlds greatest detective more than it did.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I get the impression that jamil thinks Batman is Bruce Wayne, and not the other way around

Wait, isn't he? The only exception in superhero world is Superman... He's actually Superman, but his disguise is Clark Kent.

Batman is Bruce Wayne, Batman is the disguise.

When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. When Batman wakes up, he's Bruce Wayne.

(Yes, I just rewatched Kill Bill recently)

 

[jamil]

Wait, isn't he? The only exception in superhero world is Superman... He's actually Superman, but his disguise is Clark Kent.

Batman is Bruce Wayne, Batman is the disguise.

When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. When Batman wakes up, he's Bruce Wayne.

(Yes, I just rewatched Kill Bill recently)

What if he’s wearing his disguise when he wakes up?