[b][b]最近看了很多关于individualism的资料，才发现这个美国价值观的核心不是个简单的 [b]东西，并不全像我们想象的那样。而issue 中有不少关于individualism的，列表如下。 [b]175"It is always an individual who is the impetus for innovation; the [b]details may be worked out by a team, but true innovation results from the [b]enterprise and unique perception of an individual." [b]199"Truly innovative ideas do not arise from groups of people, but from [b]individuals. When groups try to be creative, the members force each other [b]to compromise and, as a result, creative ideas tend to be weakened and made [b]more conventional. Most original ideas arise from individuals working [b]alone." [b]171"People who pursue their own intellectual interests for purely personal [b]reasons are more likely to benefit the rest of the world than are people [b]who try to act for the public good." [b]113"It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we [b]define ourselves." [b][b]93"The concept of 'individual responsibility' is a necessary fiction. [b]Although societies must hold individuals accountable for their own actions, [b]people's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making." [b]77"People today are too individualistic. Instead of pursuing self-centered, [b]separate goals, people need to understand that satisfaction comes from [b]working for the greater good of the family, the community, or society as a [b]whole." [b][b][b][b][b]What is Individualism [b]这是一片详尽阐述individualism的演讲搞， 来自于麻省理工的社团MIT Radicals [b]for Capitalism主席的竞选演说-----看社团名字就知道思想很激进…… [b]What is Individualism [b][b]Defining and contrasting individualism and collectivism [b]Individualism and collectivism are conflicting views of the nature of [b]humans, society and the relationship between them. [b]Individualism holds that the individual is the primary unit of reality and [b]the ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny that societies [b]exist or that people benefit from living in them, but it sees society as a [b]collection of individuals, not something over and above them. [b]Collectivism holds that the group---the nation, the community, the [b]proletariat, the race, etc.---is the primary unit of reality and the [b]ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny the reality of the [b]individual. But ultimately, collectivism holds that one's identity is [b]determined by the groups one interacts with, that one's identity is [b]constituted essentially of relationships with others. [b]Individualists see people dealing primarily with reality; other people are [b]just one aspect of reality. Collectivists see people dealing primarily with [b]other people; reality is dealt with through the mediator of the group; the [b]group, not the individual, is what directly confronts reality. [b]Individualism holds that every person is an end in himself and that no [b]person should be sacrificed for the sake of another. Collectivism holds [b]that the needs and goals of the individual are subordinate to those of the [b]larger group and should be sacrificed when the collective good so requires. [b]Individualism holds that the individual is the unit of achievement. While [b]not denying that one person can build on the achievements of others, [b]individualism points out that achievement goes beyond what has already been [b]done; it is something new that is created by the individual. [b]Collectivism, on the other hand, holds that achievement is a product of [b]society. In this view, an individual is a temporary spokesman for the [b]underlying, collective process of progress. [b]To further clarify the difference between individualism and collectivism, [b]I'd like to discuss two widespread misconceptions about individualism. [b]Isolation [b]The first misconception is that individualism means isolation---being [b]alone, being outside society. This misconception is reflected in the [b]popular images of ``individualism,'' images that stress being isolated, [b]such as those of the lone cowboy, the fearless gumshoe, and the isolated [b]prairie family. Such images can be exciting and heroic, but isolation is [b]not the essence of individualism. [b]In fact, the concept of individualism does not make sense in the absence of [b]other human beings. Individualism and collectivism are contrasting views of [b]the relationship between the individual and the group. Individualism is [b]called ``individualism'' not because it exhorts the individual to seek a [b]life apart from others, but because it asserts that the individual, and not [b]the group, is the primary constituent of society. [b]The belief that individualism means being alone leads people to say that [b]individualism is incompatible with cooperation. If one is too much of an [b]``individualist,'' people say, one cannot ``get along with groups,'' one is [b]not a good ``team player.'' Actually, a person who doesn't listen to [b]others, the person who would rather do things an inefficient way as long as [b]it's ``my way,'' is not being an ``individualist''---he's being closed [b]minded. A true individualist wants the best for himself, so he seeks out [b]the best, no mater who is the source. To the individualist, the truth is [b]more important than any authority, including himself. [b]Living in society, cooperating with other people---these are tremendous [b]benefits. Individualism does not deny this. But not all arrangements of [b]living and working with other men are beneficial to the individual; the [b]arrangement faced by American slaves is one example. Individualism is a [b]theory of the conditions under which living and working with others is, in [b]fact, beneficial. [b]Balance [b]Another widespread misconception about individualism is that it can somehow [b]be mixed with or tempered by collectivism. In this view, neither [b]``extreme'' individualism nor ``extreme'' collectivism are correct. Rather, [b]wisdom and truth lie somewhere in the middle. [b]Individualism and collectivism are contradictory positions---there is no [b]middle ground between them. Collectivism maintains that the group is an [b]entity in its own right, a thing that can act upon people. Individualism [b]denies this. Collectivism sees us being influenced by the group; [b]individualism sees us being influenced by other individuals. Collectivism [b]sees us cooperating with the team; individualism, with other people. [b]Collectivism sees us building on the ideas and achievements of society; [b]individualism, on the ideas and achievements of individuals. These are [b]contradictory positions; it's either-or. [b]To accept the ``balance'' point of view is to accept collectivism. No [b]collectivist has ever said that every single need of every individual must [b]be frustrated for the sake of the society---if so, there wouldn't be any [b]society left to serve. Collectivism is the balance point of view; it is a [b]matter of fine-tuning here and there, constraining individuals when their [b]interests get out of line with the ``good of society.'' [b]Indeed, the main debate between the ``left'' and the ``right'' today is not [b]a debate over collectivism and individualism---its a debate over two forms [b]of collectivism. The ``left'' holds that the needs of society lie in the [b]materialistic realm, so they are into regulating that aspect of individual [b]affairs. The ``right'' holds that the needs of society lie in the spiritual [b]realm, so they are into regulating the spiritual aspect of individual [b]affairs. [b]Collectivism is, by its nature, an act of balancing the need of the [b]individual against the need of ``society.'' Individualism denies that [b]society has any needs, so the issue of balance is not relevant to it. [b]Philosophic implications of individualism and collectivism [b]Both collectivism and individualism rest on certain values and certain [b]assumptions about the nature of man, which is what I want to explore next. [b]Responsibility vs. the safety-net [b]The first issue I want to explore is responsibility versus the social [b]safety-net. [b]A primary element of individualism is individual responsibility. Being [b]responsible is being pro-active, making one's choices consciously and [b]carefully, and accepting accountability for everything one does---or fails [b]to do. An integral part of responsibility is productivity. The [b]individualist recognizes that nothing nature gives men is entirely suited [b]to their survival; rather, humans must work to transform their environment [b]to meet their needs. This is the essence of production. The individualist [b]takes responsibility for his own production; he seeks to ``earn his own [b]way,'' to ``pull his own weight.'' [b]Collectivism doesn't disparage responsibility; but ultimately, collectivism [b]does not hold individuals accountable for the choices they make. Failing to [b]save for retirement, having children one can't afford, making bad [b]investments, becoming addicted to drugs or smoking---these actions are [b]called ``social problems'' that ``society'' has to deal with. Thus, [b]collectivists seek to build a social ``safety-net'' to protect individuals [b]from the choices they make. To collectivism, responsibility is only to be [b]expected of the productive, and consists of doing one's part in keeping the [b]social ``safety-net'' in tact. [b]Regarding production, collectivism sees society, not individuals, as the [b]agent of production. As a result, wealth belongs to ``society,'' so [b]collectivists have no trouble dreaming up schemes to redistribute wealth [b]according to their visions of ``social justice.'' [b]Egoism vs. altruism [b]The second issue I want to explore is egoism versus altruism. [b]Altruism holds ``each man as his brother's keeper;'' in other words, we are [b]each responsible for the health and well-being of others. Clearly, this is [b]a simple statement of the ``safety-net'' theory from above. This is [b]incompatible with individualism, yet many people who are basically [b]individualists uphold altruism as the standard of morality. What's going [b]on? [b]The problem is wide-spread confusion over the meanings of ``altruism'' and [b]``egoism.'' [b]The first confusion is to confound altruism with kindness, generosity, and [b]helping other people. Altruism demands more than kindness: it demands [b]sacrifice. The billionaire who contributes $50,000 to a scholarship fund is [b]not acting altruistically; altruism goes beyond simple charity. Altruism is [b]the grocery bagger who contributes $50,000 to the fund, foregoing his own [b]college education so that others may go. Parents who spend a fortune to [b]save their dying child are helping another person, but true altruism would [b]demand that the parents spend their money to save ten other children, [b]sacrificing their own child so that others may live. [b]The second confusion is to confound selfishness with brutality. The common [b]image of selfishness is the person who runs slip-shod over people in order [b]to achieve arbitrary desires. We are taught that ``selfishness'' consists [b]of dishonesty, theft, even bloodshed, usually for the sake of the whim of [b]the moment. [b]These two confusions together obscure the possibility of an ethics of non- [b]sacrifice. In this ethics, each man takes responsibility for his own life [b]and happiness, and lets other people do the same. No one sacrifices himself [b]to others, nor sacrifices others to himself. The key word in this approach [b]is earn: each person must earn a living, must earn the love and respect of [b]his peers, must earn the self-esteem and the happiness that make life worth [b]living. [b]It's this ethics of non-sacrifice that forms a lasting moral foundation for [b]individualism. It's an egoistic ethics in that each person acts to achieve [b]his own happiness. Yet, it's not the brutality usually ascribed to egoism. [b]Indeed, by rejecting sacrifice as such, it represents a revolution in [b]thinking on ethics. [b]Two asides on the topic of egoism. First, just as individualism doesn't [b]mean being alone, neither does non-sacrificial egoism. Admiration, [b]friendship, love, good-will, charity, generosity: these are wonderful [b]values that a selfishness person would want as part of his life. But these [b]values do not require true sacrifice, and thus are not altruistic in the [b]deepest sense of the word. [b]Second, I question if brutality, the form of selfishness usually ascribed [b]to egoism, is actually in one's self-interest in practice. Whim worship, [b]dishonesty, theft, exploitation: I would argue that the truly selfish man [b]rejects these, for he knows that happiness and self-esteem can't be stolen [b]at the cost of others: they must be earned through hard work. [b]Reason [b]The third issue I want to explore is reason. [b]The philosophic defense of individualism rests on the nature of reason and [b]the role it plays in human life. [b]Reason is the faculty of conceptual awareness; reason integrates the [b]evidence of the senses into a higher-level of awareness. But beyond simple [b]cognition, reason plays a key role in imagination, emotions, and [b]creativity. Every thing we think, feel, imagine and do is based on our [b]awareness and our thoughts. Our character, personal identity, and history [b]of achievement are defined by our thoughts. Our very survival depends on [b]reason. Our food, clothes, shelter, and medicine---all are products of [b]thought. Reason is at the core of being human. [b]Reason is individualistic. No person can think for another; thought is an [b]attribute of the individual. One can start with the ideas of another, but [b]each new discovery, each creative step beyond the already known, is a [b]product of the individual. And when an individual does build on the work [b]and ideas of others, he is building on the work of other individuals, not [b]on the ideas of ``society.'' [b]Individualism, then, is based on the fact that humans are rational beings, [b]and that reason is an attribute of the individual. Humans can get together [b]and share the products of reason, which is beneficial, but they cannot [b]share the capacity to think. [b]Collectivist philosophers go out of their way to attack reason. One broad [b]method of attack is skepticism, the denial that reason even works. This [b]attack is illustrated in bromides like ``you can't be sure of anything.'' A [b]more sophisticated attack on reason aims at turning reason into a product [b]of the group. Each nation, race, economic class, creed, or gender has its [b]own concept, logic, and truth. But in the end, all attacks on reason have a [b]common result: they deny or confuse the role reason plays as the foundation [b]of individualism. [b]Political implications of individualism and collectivism [b]The final issue I want to look at are the the political implications of [b]individualism and collectivism. [b]These implications should be fairly clear. Under collectivism, the [b]individual, in whole or in part, is a means to satisfying the needs of [b]``society.'' The state is the instrument for organizing people to meet [b]those needs. So it is the state, not the individual, that is sovereign. [b]Under individualism, the individual is sovereign. The individual is an end [b]in himself, whose cooperation is to be obtain only through voluntary [b]agreement. All people are expected to act as traders, either voluntarily [b]agreeing to interact or going separate ways; it's either ``win-win, or no [b]deal.'' The government is limited strictly to ensuring that coercion is [b]banished from human relations, that ``voluntary'' is really voluntary, that [b]both sides choose freely to deal and both sides live up to their [b]agreements. [b]Radicals for Capitalism [b]Since I am representing the group Radicals for Capitalism, I do want to tie [b]capitalism into the discussion so far. [b]Radicals for Capitalism advocates the philosophy of individualism, and [b]supports capitalism as the only political system compatible with [b]individualism. Unfortunately, the word ``capitalism'' is misunderstood [b]today; everybody seems to mean something different by the word. Many [b]opponents of capitalism blame the market for the result of State [b]interventions in the economy. Many so-called ``capitalists'' mix socialist [b]and interventionist schemes in with free market rhetoric---and call the [b]result Capitalism. Today, ``capitalism'' is much maligned and [b]misunderstood, buried under false allegations. [b]We want to liberate the term from such baggage. By capitalism we mean: a [b]``social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including [b]property rights, in which all property is privately owned.'' ``A system [b]where any and all forms of government intervention in production and trade [b]is abolished, and State and Economics are separated in the same way and for [b]the same reasons as the separation of Church and State'' (CUI, p109). [b]As mentioned earlier, it's a system based on the notion that humans are [b]traders---either voluntarily agreeing to interact or going separate ways--- [b]a system in which government is limited strictly to ensuring that coercion [b]is banished from human relations, that ``voluntary'' is really voluntary, [b]that both sides choose freely to deal. [b]Under capitalism, the government protects rights, including the right to [b]property. Without the right to use and dispose what one has produced, one [b]has no liberty. If individuals can't work and produce towards goals they [b]can't pursue happiness. If one can't consume the product of one's effort, [b]one cannot live. To the degree a government does not protect property [b]rights, an individual is a slave at the mercy of someone or some group. [b]Capitalism is not a system under which unproductive individuals can leach [b]off the productive ones, whether the ``unproductive'' are the unambitious [b]or politically-connected businessmen. Nor is capitalism a system in which [b]the government acts not as a protector, but as a coercer of productive [b]individuals. There are examples galore of unjust acts committed under the [b]banner of law and justice, for example, when the government takes from one [b]person to feed another, or when government takes taxpayer money to bail out [b]foolhardy bankers. [b]Unfortunately, our vision of capitalism is not the current state of affairs [b]and has only been approximated in the history of the man kind. No system in [b]the world today is capitalistic to the extent we advocate. All could be, [b]but not without changes; in particular, the wide-spread acceptance of [b]individualism. [b]Conclusion [b]I began this talk by mentioning the upcoming election. You might be [b]wondering what the relevance of my words are to that election. [b]In terms of effecting change, the fundamental issues we've touched on today [b]have a time horizon much longer than the electoral process---we're talking [b]decades and even generations. And yet, these fundamental issues are more [b]important than the implementation details we hear about, in the sense that [b]whether people accept individualism, moderate collectivism, or extreme [b]collectivism has a tremendous impact on the range of implementation details [b]considered at election time. [b]Our goal today, and the goal of RadCap's in general, is to help raise the [b]level of abstraction of political discourse to a higher level, to the level [b]of fundamental issues like individualism versus collectivism. Of course, [b]RadCaps advocates a specific point of view---individualism---and we would [b]like to convince people that it's the correct one. But just as important, [b]we feel, is the more general goal of the level of discourse. So I hope that [b]next time you hear a political advertisement or a debate between [b]candidates, you'll try to see the collectivist and individualist angles in [b]addition to the concrete policies advocated [b]