It's funny that even in those books (Walden and anything by Ayn Rand), there's a strong "individualist" theme but Thoreau regularly went into town while at Walden (and had to buy some materials to make his cabin -- which he built on his friend's land -- such that he also had to do odd jobs to get the money), and the first thing that Rand's protagonists do after realizing their individualist superpowers is create a community. Perhaps the weirder thing about modern individualism is that we don't see the giant shoulders on which we stand. Sure, you can be your own person but good luck without electricity or the interwebs which is the result of efforts of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. Good luck without the knowledge of how to purify water or grow food. These things are not natural knowledge; we don't have the instinct to plant tomatoes. Even knowing we can is a form of temporal collectivism. In that vein, if one has children and feels a responsibility to raise them such that they'll be materially better than themselves, that too is a form of temporal collectivism. The strongest assertion I can make is that individualism in the strongest sense is the rejection of assumed responsibility / the social contract; one has the option to take on responsibilities as they see fit, but it's the rejection of any responsibility thrust upon you. But if a hero is someone who rises to the challenges of their time -- who takes the Ring to Mordor despite their apparent unworthiness -- is it even possible to have individualist heroes? John Galt is a Randian hero (ironic as it may sound) in part because he tries to liberate those he deems worthy of joining his utopia. Galt wasn't an individualist, just an elitist. (Disclaimer: I don't advocate for Rand or any of her views. I enjoyed several of her books but don't generally agree with them) I guess this was a very roundabout way of asking the following: 1. Is it possible to have individualist heroes? 2. Is that why we so worship superheroes? 3. Why would we have a collective fascination with superheroes when they contradict our idea of 'anyone can cook if you practice for 10000 hours' (as Ratatouille and Malcolm Gladwell so brilliantly put)? 4. Are we just trying to justify our collective failures by beseeching superheroes/Cincinnatus to solve our problems?
Excellent point. I find the discussion of individualism is very influenced by deep propagandistic undercurrents. USA culture presupposes 3000+ years of European history but can’t even muster an acknowledgment of this. This has a political cause in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. American elites wanted to import millions of poor Europeans yet simultaneously break, destroy and rearrange their cultural identities. So perforce they had to become anti-European to differentiate, especially as they took an ever deeper role in fighting in and then “rescuing” Europe. 20th century American identity is largely a lie because these political foundations underlying the repudiation of people’s former identities (Irish, German, Italian) can never be acknowledged. Thats my view anyway.
You've completely missed the point. It is about being free from you. Yes, free from you personally pushing and interfering into my life. Specifically those who use the State to do it. You seem to have conflated "community". The disclaimer shows virtue signalling, so safe to assume what you mean by community. Secondly, as far as Ayn Rand's characters go. They are written to create a romanticized ideal hero to develop the settings where the conflicts play out. Ayn Rand very simply destroys dialectic leftism aka collectivist cults simply by telling the truth.
@@radwizard yea, while hypocritically maintaining one’s complete and utter dependence on the collective- which is part of human nature. The English language- you just take it as a given. The interstate highway system- you just take that as a given. 5000 years of metallurgy- again, you take it as a given. Just give you all of society’s goods and never make any reciprocal demands. Got it. Lel
Your lecture from a while ago on Max Stirner really spoke to me on this, not so much changing my opinions, but putting them to words, his conception of individualism is far more like what I tend to think of it as than what you've described so far in this video ( 30:38)
Thank you, Professor Wes Cecil, for the discourse pedagogy, epistemology, critical pedagogy, and critical thinking, and the dialialectic. As I admired the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, the Stocis have their place as you argued admirablely. Ayn Rand "Fountainhead," "Atlas Shrugged," were reprehensible for my taste of asthetics. Self-interest motives were her allies. The music of Mozart, Beethoven, and symphonies with musicians, strums with great intelligence amongst great composers and arrangers, lyricist, styles and rhythms in all generas. Sincere dedication in work of excellence and passion. Pianists of classical, jazz, all instruments included or combination of more than one. How can one just choose just one over the other? Vladimir Horowitz, Art Tatum, Rachmaninoff, pianist, Bill Evans, classical trained and jazz. My love for Glenn Gould is boundless. So many composers, Leonard Bernstein, Daniel Barenboim, cellist, Jacqueline du Prey, or PabloCasals, cellist, George and Ira Gershwin, Rogers and Hart, Henry Mancini, the great Maestro Ennio Morricone. Please forgive me, for my list is quite long of artists. Music, art of many varieties are the glues that holds our world together. As to weather the storms of the structures of goverments and greed of self-interest of unceasing wars and military contractors. American Imperialism and colonization. The British Empire and colonization. Fortunately we had many great writers and independent journalists to assist in this American and world histories. I am happy you are doing well and still living in Paris, France, with your wife and still teaching. Congratulations on the election in France yesterday of the election of Jean Luc Melenchon. Viva la France!!! Bravo 👏 As for the election here in America , I stand my ground for neither side as there are many arguments to be made considerably there. Importantly, let's start with 911. 😊😊
Individualism is a hallmark of American culture, contrasting with the historical tendency of humans to form groups. In the Brazilian Amazon rainforest, you won't find a single native person living alone. The same applies to the Sahara Desert, where an individualist would likely die of thirst, and the North Pole, where survival alone is nearly impossible. This preference for villages, tribes, and groups is deeply ingrained in human nature. Sadly, the Cold War amplified this “American”individualistic idea, driven by the rabid U.S. propaganda against socialism.
Amazing series so far Wes!! One question/request here: I'd really like to hear an outline on the processes behind how culture is created and developed. Then, for those who really care about having culture and want to do something about the kind of lack of it, how we can get in touch with that process today to intentionally create, build upon, and develop regional cultures and communities?
Question: does all of modernity have an individualism problem too? How does this specifically American style relate to the more general modern development of individualism e.g. European Romanticism, Russian Nihilism, Nietzsche etc?
Could you talk more about how american individualism har shaped American politics, and maybe vice versa? as an european i find it interesting but hard to really understand
30:12 I disagree with this. Not on Stoicism, but on what it would mean in American society. To me, the ultimate in civic duty isn't being a politician, but I'm exercising your rights and obligations to the fullest, voting in every election and referendum, not trying to weasel out of things like jury duty. Using the power given to you within society to influence it in lines with your morals.
I believe Wes was speaking on the historical understanding of Stoicism which does heavily emphasize the responsibility of participating in public office. Your comment does, however, reinforce his assertion that Americans don't consider public office a responsibility (which isn't an insult. I'm an American as well and never considered that until reading the Stoics). "Using the power given to you within society to influence it in lines with your morals" could be interpreted to mean "run for public office" though; the ancient Stoics would just say you have a responsibility to do so while the contemporary American would say instead that one has the option to do so.
@@chemistrymickey Exactly, public office is one way you can do, but there are a limited number of positions, and public office might not be the best way of exercising your powers, I'm planning to become a history teacher, which I feel is a better way.
The root of all evil in the world is based on identity. Race, nation, religion, gender... If you take any of those too seriously, you are bound to feel hate and separated from other people for no sensible reason at all.
@@TomRauhe yeah you took a core feature of human nature and said, because it can be misused, it is the core of all evil. I made a physical analogy to this. Don’t use your arms anymore man - don’t you know how many people have used arms to hurt people!
I'm not very familiar with Hegel, but I've heard he had the idea that we need to be in like with the rest of the society we're in or else we'll become depressed. Has this come to play out in the US?
Thanks for your work Professor Wes I always leave a little more enlightened 🤞🏾 and I was just thinking that individualism and Narcissism goes hand in hand in this country and is necessary for the particular Capitalism system we have here smh
My primary takeaway from outliers was that 50% of where you find yourself in life is "the grind", but the other 50% of where you find yourself is purely the circumstances of your birth and random happenchance. This is best illustrated in the opening story highlighting the flaw in Canadian hockey..? Also, the original purpose of stoicism sounds very familiar to Confucianism, and very similar to the process nobles would take becoming educated in scripture before taking on a leadership role in the middle ages.
I straight up don't understand why identity is so important to people. Or at least, why debunking and labeling identity is. I am me, that's my identity. Friends, family, acquaintances, community, society, those are relationships, and they're not meaningless, hoever abstract They are, but they aren't me, I don't identify myself that way, I've never messed anything more definite than that I am myself, and I am no one else.
@@ongobongo8333 It's not a matter of agreement, that's how I identify. I just don't understand why anyone would need more than that, and no one has been able to evolving it to me.
@@Great_Olaf5institutions want you to identify through them, we are still children of the long reign of churches also, which promote a strong bonding through „outside identity „
@@franzwonka2580 But that's still not identity. I'm Catholic, but that's the church I go to, not who I am. What I do, what I am, who I interact with, _none of that_ is identity.
Why wouldn't the individualist see the logic in serving the community in the most individualistic way allowing them to achieve their individualistic goals. Philosophically is everything even individualism so finitely defined?
I am a bit behind on your channel so maybe you address this later but I feel the problem with this is people are not create equal and you are up against monopolies if say your new fizzy soda was excellent you are not going to compete. Even if you wanted to drop out and say become a homesteader you have to buy/rent land and pay land taxes from the start. I an not in usa is it true schools have to say the pledge of alligence every day? I can't think that anything can be more against individualism.
Mmm, its probably not the case that everyone that wants to home school their kids, want to do so because they're averse or insufficiently appreciative of community. Might be the case that the public school system actually sucks and one need not only worry about the ever diminishing quality of educ service, but also the safety of your child while they attend....Anybody that attended a slighly ghetto school can probably appreciate this.
sounds like Diogenes would approve. Dr Cecil I would dispute your point at 28:00. Seneca clearly instructs Lucillius its perfectly ok to abandon office and pursue philosophy, as does Epictetus when he lectures the (two times consul who is a slave). It seems you're picking and choosing Stoicism to shape the narrative you wish to push.
45:49 Your analysis is wrong. The homeschool movement on the right is not the product of believing in the destruction of community education. Homeschoolers generally build what you might call "Epicurean" communities. The larger impetus for defunding public schools is the restoration of religious instruction in education. The reason this is associated with the right is not the radical individualist but the religious Christian component of the right which feels (justifiably) that religious instruction is being destroyed by the modern state. After all, up until 1960, we had religious instruction in most public schools in the US. It was the concept of radical individualism that curtailed this communal element and spawned the insularly secular public school, which I would relate through mixing your metaphors to be "atheistic Calvinism" within American culture.
His analysis is wrong because he didn't explicitly mention conservative religious convictions as a primary motivator for homeschooling? It sounded like what he said prior to the time stamp you reference incorporates "dissenting views from public education systems" as a primary reason for homeschooling.
@@Okradokra The connection to individualism is the faulty assumption. Religious communities are not generally individualistic and homeschool kids are not raised as future John Galts. Also the Establishment Clause was reinterpreted by judges who wanted to secularize public schools in the 1960s. For almost 200 years, the Establishment Clause served only to restrict government interference with religion, not to restrict religious involvement in government. The government cannot establish a state religion, but by removing all religion from public schools, it has de facto established a state religion of secular atheism.
It's funny that even in those books (Walden and anything by Ayn Rand), there's a strong "individualist" theme but Thoreau regularly went into town while at Walden (and had to buy some materials to make his cabin -- which he built on his friend's land -- such that he also had to do odd jobs to get the money), and the first thing that Rand's protagonists do after realizing their individualist superpowers is create a community.
Perhaps the weirder thing about modern individualism is that we don't see the giant shoulders on which we stand.
Sure, you can be your own person but good luck without electricity or the interwebs which is the result of efforts of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.
Good luck without the knowledge of how to purify water or grow food.
These things are not natural knowledge; we don't have the instinct to plant tomatoes. Even knowing we can is a form of temporal collectivism.
In that vein, if one has children and feels a responsibility to raise them such that they'll be materially better than themselves, that too is a form of temporal collectivism.
The strongest assertion I can make is that individualism in the strongest sense is the rejection of assumed responsibility / the social contract; one has the option to take on responsibilities as they see fit, but it's the rejection of any responsibility thrust upon you.
But if a hero is someone who rises to the challenges of their time -- who takes the Ring to Mordor despite their apparent unworthiness -- is it even possible to have individualist heroes?
John Galt is a Randian hero (ironic as it may sound) in part because he tries to liberate those he deems worthy of joining his utopia. Galt wasn't an individualist, just an elitist.
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate for Rand or any of her views. I enjoyed several of her books but don't generally agree with them)
I guess this was a very roundabout way of asking the following:
1. Is it possible to have individualist heroes?
2. Is that why we so worship superheroes?
3. Why would we have a collective fascination with superheroes when they contradict our idea of 'anyone can cook if you practice for 10000 hours' (as Ratatouille and Malcolm Gladwell so brilliantly put)?
4. Are we just trying to justify our collective failures by beseeching superheroes/Cincinnatus to solve our problems?
Excellent point. I find the discussion of individualism is very influenced by deep propagandistic undercurrents. USA culture presupposes 3000+ years of European history but can’t even muster an acknowledgment of this. This has a political cause in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. American elites wanted to import millions of poor Europeans yet simultaneously break, destroy and rearrange their cultural identities. So perforce they had to become anti-European to differentiate, especially as they took an ever deeper role in fighting in and then “rescuing” Europe. 20th century American identity is largely a lie because these political foundations underlying the repudiation of people’s former identities (Irish, German, Italian) can never be acknowledged. Thats my view anyway.
You've completely missed the point. It is about being free from you. Yes, free from you personally pushing and interfering into my life. Specifically those who use the State to do it. You seem to have conflated "community". The disclaimer shows virtue signalling, so safe to assume what you mean by community. Secondly, as far as Ayn Rand's characters go. They are written to create a romanticized ideal hero to develop the settings where the conflicts play out. Ayn Rand very simply destroys dialectic leftism aka collectivist cults simply by telling the truth.
@@radwizard yea, while hypocritically maintaining one’s complete and utter dependence on the collective- which is part of human nature. The English language- you just take it as a given. The interstate highway system- you just take that as a given. 5000 years of metallurgy- again, you take it as a given. Just give you all of society’s goods and never make any reciprocal demands. Got it. Lel
Your lecture from a while ago on Max Stirner really spoke to me on this, not so much changing my opinions, but putting them to words, his conception of individualism is far more like what I tend to think of it as than what you've described so far in this video ( 30:38)
He is great, unfortunately he didnt write a lot, everything i could find i got, his essay on Art and Religion, and state and citizens are amazing
Thank you, Professor Wes Cecil, for the discourse pedagogy, epistemology, critical pedagogy, and critical thinking, and the dialialectic.
As I admired the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, the Stocis have their place as you argued admirablely. Ayn Rand "Fountainhead," "Atlas Shrugged," were reprehensible for my taste of asthetics.
Self-interest motives were her allies. The music of Mozart, Beethoven, and symphonies with musicians, strums with great intelligence amongst great composers and arrangers, lyricist, styles and rhythms in all generas. Sincere dedication in work of excellence and passion.
Pianists of classical, jazz, all instruments included or combination of more than one.
How can one just choose just one over the other? Vladimir Horowitz, Art Tatum, Rachmaninoff, pianist, Bill Evans, classical trained and jazz. My love for Glenn Gould is boundless. So many composers, Leonard Bernstein, Daniel Barenboim, cellist, Jacqueline du Prey, or PabloCasals, cellist, George and Ira Gershwin, Rogers and Hart, Henry Mancini, the great Maestro Ennio Morricone. Please forgive me, for my list is quite long of artists. Music, art of many varieties are the glues that holds our world together.
As to weather the storms of the structures of goverments and greed of self-interest of unceasing wars and military contractors. American Imperialism and colonization. The British Empire and colonization. Fortunately we had many great writers and independent journalists to assist in this American and world histories.
I am happy you are doing well and still living in Paris, France, with your wife and still teaching. Congratulations on the election in France yesterday of the election of Jean Luc Melenchon.
Viva la France!!! Bravo 👏
As for the election here in America , I stand my ground for neither side as there are many arguments to be made considerably there. Importantly, let's start with 911. 😊😊
Individualism is a hallmark of American culture, contrasting with the historical tendency of humans to form groups. In the Brazilian Amazon rainforest, you won't find a single native person living alone. The same applies to the Sahara Desert, where an individualist would likely die of thirst, and the North Pole, where survival alone is nearly impossible. This preference for villages, tribes, and groups is deeply ingrained in human nature. Sadly, the Cold War amplified this “American”individualistic idea, driven by the rabid U.S. propaganda against socialism.
So, is socialism good then? Is it the way to go?
Think i just found a gem of a channel 💎
Amazing series so far Wes!! One question/request here: I'd really like to hear an outline on the processes behind how culture is created and developed. Then, for those who really care about having culture and want to do something about the kind of lack of it, how we can get in touch with that process today to intentionally create, build upon, and develop regional cultures and communities?
Looking forward to October lectures. Congrats Wes!
Question: does all of modernity have an individualism problem too? How does this specifically American style relate to the more general modern development of individualism e.g. European Romanticism, Russian Nihilism, Nietzsche etc?
when will there be a series on propaganda, the oligarchs, or the end of bretton woods? plsssss these are the key moments in politics/history
How do you think American culture could accept their ignorances from the past (as you described), and have a more connected culture from where we are?
Could you talk more about how american individualism har shaped American politics, and maybe vice versa? as an european i find it interesting but hard to really understand
30:12 I disagree with this. Not on Stoicism, but on what it would mean in American society. To me, the ultimate in civic duty isn't being a politician, but I'm exercising your rights and obligations to the fullest, voting in every election and referendum, not trying to weasel out of things like jury duty. Using the power given to you within society to influence it in lines with your morals.
I believe Wes was speaking on the historical understanding of Stoicism which does heavily emphasize the responsibility of participating in public office.
Your comment does, however, reinforce his assertion that Americans don't consider public office a responsibility (which isn't an insult. I'm an American as well and never considered that until reading the Stoics).
"Using the power given to you within society to influence it in lines with your morals" could be interpreted to mean "run for public office" though; the ancient Stoics would just say you have a responsibility to do so while the contemporary American would say instead that one has the option to do so.
@@chemistrymickey Exactly, public office is one way you can do, but there are a limited number of positions, and public office might not be the best way of exercising your powers, I'm planning to become a history teacher, which I feel is a better way.
@@Great_Olaf5 That's also respectable! And thank you for doing so!
@@Great_Olaf5 teach philosophy!
Do you believe McCormack was one of the great American writers? What about someone like DF Wallace?
The root of all evil in the world is based on identity. Race, nation, religion, gender... If you take any of those too seriously, you are bound to feel hate and separated from other people for no sensible reason at all.
Indeed ❤
Its like saying arms are evil, because you can use a human arm to hurt someone.
@@ixcalix148 this has nothing to do with anything I said
@@TomRauhe yeah you took a core feature of human nature and said, because it can be misused, it is the core of all evil. I made a physical analogy to this. Don’t use your arms anymore man - don’t you know how many people have used arms to hurt people!
Why would you not be able to take gender seriously without harming others? I don't understand how one has to cause the other
I'm not very familiar with Hegel, but I've heard he had the idea that we need to be in like with the rest of the society we're in or else we'll become depressed. Has this come to play out in the US?
Thanks for your work Professor Wes I always leave a little more enlightened 🤞🏾 and I was just thinking that individualism and Narcissism goes hand in hand in this country and is necessary for the particular Capitalism system we have here smh
My primary takeaway from outliers was that 50% of where you find yourself in life is "the grind", but the other 50% of where you find yourself is purely the circumstances of your birth and random happenchance. This is best illustrated in the opening story highlighting the flaw in Canadian hockey..? Also, the original purpose of stoicism sounds very familiar to Confucianism, and very similar to the process nobles would take becoming educated in scripture before taking on a leadership role in the middle ages.
I straight up don't understand why identity is so important to people. Or at least, why debunking and labeling identity is. I am me, that's my identity. Friends, family, acquaintances, community, society, those are relationships, and they're not meaningless, hoever abstract They are, but they aren't me, I don't identify myself that way, I've never messed anything more definite than that I am myself, and I am no one else.
What if everyone else disagrees
@@ongobongo8333 It's not a matter of agreement, that's how I identify. I just don't understand why anyone would need more than that, and no one has been able to evolving it to me.
@@Great_Olaf5institutions want you to identify through them, we are still children of the long reign of churches also, which promote a strong bonding through „outside identity „
@@franzwonka2580 But that's still not identity. I'm Catholic, but that's the church I go to, not who I am. What I do, what I am, who I interact with, _none of that_ is identity.
Take your daughter to Afghanistan and let her identify as she chooses. See how long it takes for to realise that you identify as a Westerner.
Why wouldn't the individualist see the logic in serving the community in the most individualistic way allowing them to achieve their individualistic goals. Philosophically is everything even individualism so finitely defined?
I am a bit behind on your channel so maybe you address this later but I feel the problem with this is people are not create equal and you are up against monopolies if say your new fizzy soda was excellent you are not going to compete. Even if you wanted to drop out and say become a homesteader you have to buy/rent land and pay land taxes from the start.
I an not in usa is it true schools have to say the pledge of alligence every day? I can't think that anything can be more against individualism.
Mmm, its probably not the case that everyone that wants to home school their kids, want to do so because they're averse or insufficiently appreciative of community. Might be the case that the public school system actually sucks and one need not only worry about the ever diminishing quality of educ service, but also the safety of your child while they attend....Anybody that attended a slighly ghetto school can probably appreciate this.
Thanks for the essay, and double thanks for the quote from Ayn Rand, who seemed to be a truly miserable soul from her lovers and understudies records.
sounds like Diogenes would approve. Dr Cecil I would dispute your point at 28:00. Seneca clearly instructs Lucillius its perfectly ok to abandon office and pursue philosophy, as does Epictetus when he lectures the (two times consul who is a slave). It seems you're picking and choosing Stoicism to shape the narrative you wish to push.
What if Philosopher would be an office of a sort, in some ways the ultimate office?
@@rcmrcm3370 we would probably have no need for reality tv or drug abuse to happen amongst other things
52:10 Know the rules before you break the rules.
Kewl
please increase audio
I enjoy your videos but you are mis lead on some of your points
45:49 Your analysis is wrong. The homeschool movement on the right is not the product of believing in the destruction of community education. Homeschoolers generally build what you might call "Epicurean" communities. The larger impetus for defunding public schools is the restoration of religious instruction in education. The reason this is associated with the right is not the radical individualist but the religious Christian component of the right which feels (justifiably) that religious instruction is being destroyed by the modern state. After all, up until 1960, we had religious instruction in most public schools in the US. It was the concept of radical individualism that curtailed this communal element and spawned the insularly secular public school, which I would relate through mixing your metaphors to be "atheistic Calvinism" within American culture.
His analysis is wrong because he didn't explicitly mention conservative religious convictions as a primary motivator for homeschooling?
It sounded like what he said prior to the time stamp you reference incorporates "dissenting views from public education systems" as a primary reason for homeschooling.
Also, establishment clause...
@@Okradokra The connection to individualism is the faulty assumption. Religious communities are not generally individualistic and homeschool kids are not raised as future John Galts.
Also the Establishment Clause was reinterpreted by judges who wanted to secularize public schools in the 1960s. For almost 200 years, the Establishment Clause served only to restrict government interference with religion, not to restrict religious involvement in government. The government cannot establish a state religion, but by removing all religion from public schools, it has de facto established a state religion of secular atheism.