Eugenics (1 Viewer)

[KFunk]

Sure thing.

Thank goodness some sanity prevails. Whilst I think the 'betterment' of humanity is a rather nebulous goal, I do feel that humanity by its own baser traits naturally performs some form of eugenics. (Sup Darwin). Whether we're talking about forcing the hand of selection to choosing characteristics that we see as contextually viable (Intelligence, whiter-teeth, etc), we would be facing the situation where we try to extend our philosophies and morals as purely objective concepts. In that, were we to preserve traits for all times, we would preserve those purely beneficial in our own society.

Which, I think, seems to undermine the whole notion of evolution of society and the powerful force of change?

Lolrony?

Even our most institutionalised forms of philosophy/morality (religions probably) are prone to change with the developing views of society. I'm not much of a student of religion but at face value the various major schisms that have occured seem to reflect the intellectual climate of the time to some degree (in other words they seem to accomodate certain aspects of contemporary thought at those points). Nonetheless, fundamentalists remain and so religion seems to at least be resilient to change to some degree (though keep in mind, we are looking at an extremely short time scale in terms of evolution).

Also, note that our society constantly practices scientific research and meta-reflective discourse (e.g. about our society: where we are headed and why? what is morality and where does it come from? How would possible answers affect the answer that we give? etc..). As far as I can tell these practices tend towards, at least, some degree of change. Though it nonetheless seems broadly possible that we could direct ourselves towards a stable state which experienced minimal change. At present I'm sure we have a few scientific/intellectual/social revolutions left in us (think possibilities like a comprehensive neuroscience, changing views on the nature of morality, different treatment of social 'others' and international extension of social justice) - but at the end of all that will we find some kind of equilibrium? Who knows. It seems almost too complex to speculate.

 

[lasnAy]

Also, you mention aspects of humanity that are important to you - individualism, family, love, art, emotions, etc. Do you have any thoughts on why these preferences stand out as important?

Well to me they are regarded as important because of the environment i've been brought up in (i.e. mainly due to parents, friends, teachers and the typical customary values/morals). I've always been tuaght to cherish family, love, individuality etc.... And i think these concepts are important to a majority of people these days (hopefully) also as a result of the environment that they have been brought up in.

btw is there any particular purpose for all the questions to me? =p Don't get offended by that question, i actually like the questions. they provide bettr discussion ....... also your course sounds awesome!!! i never even knew it existed til now... i must talk to you sometime about it and what you do in it etc..

 

[KFunk]

btw is there any particular purpose for all the questions to me? =p Don't get offended by that question, i actually like the questions. they provide bettr discussion ....... also your course sounds awesome!!! i never even knew it existed til now... i must talk to you sometime about it and what you do in it etc..

No significant purpose really. It just seemed like there was more you could say if prompted and I was curious to hear your views. I also wanted to bring out the 'humanity' issue because I often see things like that (and rights discourse, and similar) brought out as unquestionable 'conversation stoppers' in arguments.

And yes, arts/med exists (I am able to do honours in arts as well - though this has involved some extra negotiation). Feel free to PM me if you have any questions about it.

 

[quixote studios]

@ BNW: BNW was more an argument against commoditization rather than eugenics. Also, as stated, it was a hypothetical “worst case scenario”, so marks off for extremism. The key focus seems to be on the individual vs society, with eugenics as merely a way of enforcing the will of the society. Plus it’s not really eugenics as it is social manufacturing. There is no evidence of any attempt to improve the genetic material, only copying in order to maintain the status quo


KFunk: your idea of equilibrium is interesting. Do you believe that humanity would be better off in a stable state with minimum change (were it possible)?

lasnAy: what does being an individual mean to you? Think about this: you say that you value love, individualism, etc, because your upbringing promoted these values. What if this was not the case? Is individualism the cause of your valuing of individualism, or is it societal norms that instills this?

That eugenics will eventually create an upper class of designed humans (ala Gattaca, BNW) is probably indisputable. But how is that different from much of human history? I think a main problem people have with eugenic based segmentation is the mobility (or lack of) between the two classes. But this I believe is less of a problem than Gattaca would have us believe. Genetics can only influence your eventual attributes. Education, training etc are what determines the final product, and determination and willpower (ie “humanness”) still play a big role.

 

[lasnAy]

There is no evidence of any attempt to improve the genetic material, only copying in order to maintain the status quo

Your right, in BNW it is completely about copying to maintain the status quo (as you put it..). But would this be any different form the use of eugenics in our modern day society? I think it is actually similar, both societies will ultimately be using eugenics as a means of eradicating undesireable qualities from society.

Is individualism the cause of your valuing of individualism, or is it societal norms that instills this?

i don't quite understand what your asking here, could you please clarify?

That eugenics will eventually create an upper class of designed humans (ala Gattaca, BNW) is probably indisputable. But how is that different from much of human history? I think a main problem people have with eugenic based segmentation is the mobility (or lack of) between the two classes. But this I believe is less of a problem than Gattaca would have us believe. Genetics can only influence your eventual attributes. Education, training etc are what determines the final product, and determination and willpower (ie “humanness”) still play a big role.

here, im not sure whether your encouraging the separation between societal classes or arguing that eugenics will help close the gap between the classes. If it is the latter, then i have to disagree. Eugenics will be a very expensive process and therefore will only be avaiable for consideration fo the more wealthy classes. Hence this will further broaden the gap. If this is not what you were syaing, then what were you saying? =s

 

[KFunk]

KFunk: your idea of equilibrium is interesting. Do you believe that humanity would be better off in a stable state with minimum change (were it possible)?

That depends on the nature of the kind of society required for stability. Certainly stability and equilibrium with regards to the environment is an attractive ideal, i.e. featuring sustainable agriculture and zero population growth (or similar). On the other hand, if the only realistic means of acheiving such stability is via massive social coercion (in particular, involving the promotion of certain kinds of ignorance and false belief) then I would hesitate to see things as 'better off' (in my opinion, that is). If nothing else it would be nice to see some kind of equilibrium with environmental systems.

 

[quixote studios]

Your right, in BNW it is completely about copying to maintain the status quo (as you put it..). But would this be any different form the use of eugenics in our modern day society? I think it is actually similar, both societies will ultimately be using eugenics as a means of eradicating undesireable qualities from society.

Eugenics can be practiced two ways: the artificial improvement of genes, ie changing genetic material; or the elimination of "undesirable" or weak genetic material (ie, humans) from the gene pool. Evolution is the second method practiced on a macro scale, with the strong surviving to pass on their genes and the weak dying out. That said, I don't think the latter can possibly be carried out, in our present day society. History and literature serves as grim warnings against arbitarily defining and eliminating undesirables. Short of a Malthusian catastrophe, it simply cannot be instituted on an effective scale.

here, im not sure whether your encouraging the separation between societal classes or arguing that eugenics will help close the gap between the classes. If it is the latter, then i have to disagree. Eugenics will be a very expensive process and therefore will only be avaiable for consideration fo the more wealthy classes. Hence this will further broaden the gap. If this is not what you were syaing, then what were you saying? =s

I'm saying that there is the perception that eugenics will lead to extreme social inequality, far beyond today's, and that "naturally born" people will be discriminated against by employers (amongst others). I simply don't see how that can happen. Genetics does not determine a person's end result, it merely affects his/her predisposition to certain things, like greater intelligence, stronger/faster muscles etc. A person still has to work to achieve those end results. And since the lower classes (ie those who cannot afford genetic engineering) are more numerous, it follows that democratic governments will regulate against said discrimination. In theory...

The Gattaca argument majorly pisses me off. The protagonist has a heightened risk of heart attacks. Does it not follow that he cannot be an astronaut, an occupation that places enormous strain on the heart?

i don't quite understand what your asking here, could you please clarify?

Do you value individualism as the result of your own judgement and opinion, or is it just that your environment taught you to value individualism? I only ask this because I think western civilisation overrates individualism. But then again half my relatives are members of the CCP, so...*shrug*

That depends on the nature of the kind of society required for stability. Certainly stability and equilibrium with regards to the environment is an attractive ideal, i.e. featuring sustainable agriculture and zero population growth (or similar). On the other hand, if the only realistic means of acheiving such stability is via massive social coercion (in particular, involving the promotion of certain kinds of ignorance and false belief) then I would hesitate to see things as 'better off' (in my opinion, that is). If nothing else it would be nice to see some kind of equilibrium with environmental systems.

Hmm...I ask because you used the word equilibrium. I see equilibrium is a state of compromise, where all parties are satisfied with the status quo, and will remain satisfied. Human nature, I think, precludes this. Short of massive social engineering and coercion, humans as a race are incapable of ever acting for "the greater good" for any extended periods of time, say even just a few decades, especially when doing so means having to sacrafice some privileges. Even with the environment; to achieve equilibrium, we have to sacrafice some potential economic prosperity. Frankly just getting people to admit to the problem has taken unbelievable amounts of time and effort.

 

[tommykins]

so you would ratherl ive in a world in which there is no individuality? A world in which people are practically hypnotised through the use of hypnopaedia sleep teaching to simply quote meaningless sayings such as "Evryone belongs to everyone else", "civilisation is sterilisaiton", "whent he individual feels, the community reels".........

Exactly, I wouldn't know any better if I lived in that World, I would careless about my individualism because I'd be programmed to like my position nonetheless.

This is a community in which young children are taught to rejoice in the thoguhts of sexual experimentation, and death, whilst they are also taught to be disgusted with the idea of emotions and questioning the values of society (their society is a totalitarian society!!! theres a reason why hitler is despised) and devl;op a hatred for nature. This is a society in which consumerism and mass production are put ahead of individual freedom and humanity.

Why is nature good? Why is indiviudalism good? Why is freedom and "humanity" good? So far it's only caused war and violence in this current world no?

The dangers presented in 'Brave New World' is the loss of humanity and loss of individuality.

personally, i think the world state is disgusting.

Obviously that is from your point of view and you're totally entitled to it.

But the whole basis from my point of view is "ignorance is bliss" - the World State has no wars, no violence, evyerone gets along with each other, if it means giving up my indiivudality/knowledge but be HAPPY, I'd do it in a second. You may think "but it's hollow happiness" but if you take the context of the book into consideration, you wouldn't know it's hollow happiness, it is ultiamtely happiness as you are programmed to feel happy in your position.

Just my viewpoint

 

[Kirsty Xx]

I whole heartedly support prenatal screening for degenerative genetic disorders.

The end.

Agreed

 

[-WaxingLyrical-]

Why is nature good? Why is indiviudalism good? Why is freedom and "humanity" good? So far it's only caused war and violence in this current world no?

Individualism is important in maintaining one's sense of identity, in self awareness and self expression. While it may not be a good thing all the time (yes war and violence are at times a result of this freedom of expression and views), the positive changes are important in allowing a society to move forward, and it is the individual who has the power to initiate this. The positive effects of individualism outnumber the negative what with war, violence, terrorism etc, but I think the problem is that we've grown up so used to being able to express our thoughts and our individuality (to a degree) that we take it for granted, and its the negative things we notice.

Without this individuality, there would be universal conformity and uniformity, and (not talking BNW specifically here) power would lie in the hands of a dictator or a single all-controlling party, and change would not be dictated by the masses but by them (if you want to talk literature, see 1984 - the effect of a lack of individuality, or tolerance for individuality/totalitarianism, resulted in their society actually moving backwards)

Did that make any sense or was it all just delusional rambling? Or maybe a bit of both?

But the whole basis from my point of view is "ignorance is bliss" - the World State has no wars, no violence, evyerone gets along with each other, if it means giving up my indiivudality/knowledge but be HAPPY, I'd do it in a second. You may think "but it's hollow happiness" but if you take the context of the book into consideration, you wouldn't know it's hollow happiness, it is ultiamtely happiness as you are programmed to feel happy in your position.

Just my viewpoint

Well fair enough - I know these are your views, but I don't think it works quite that way in the novel. The lack of violence is controlled through their dependency on the use of soma (we see that even with their conditioning, the masses start to get angry and violent when they are denied the soma, and crowd control involves spraying large amounts of it in the air).

Also, can it really be called happiness if there is no room for any other feeling? If that's all they've really been trained to feel?

Getting back on track (because eugenics doesn't really tie in with BNW) , I guess I support eugenics to a degree - when used properly (ie not like Hitler) it can have some really positive outcomes like with decreasing mental and physical deficiencies, but like a lot of things science related, its power can be very easily abused. I guess it could all just blow up in our faces.

 

[lasnAy]

I'm saying that there is the perception that eugenics will lead to extreme social inequality, far beyond today's, and that "naturally born" people will be discriminated against by employers (amongst others). I simply don't see how that can happen. Genetics does not determine a person's end result, it merely affects his/her predisposition to certain things, like greater intelligence, stronger/faster muscles etc.

When i say that the implementation of Eugenics in modern society will further the gap between social classes, i'm referring mainly to the fact that these processes will be very expensive and so only the wealthy or semi-wealthy will be able to afford it. Thus those that are wealthy have the chance to eradicate undesirable qualities form their children, and eventually form their gene pool, whilst the remainder of society who will be unable to afford this process will have many genetic disorders. Also, no doubt, the price for health insurance/ life insurance will be more expensive for those that are not born through the help of eugenics, and so those unable to afford it may also need to payh extra for health insurance. If the insurance companies are considering the introduction of DNA testing to differentiate between the "healthy" and those that are likely to actually need insurance, chances are that they will also introduce a test to deffirentiate between those who were bron through the help of eugenics 9the "healthy") and those not (and therefore mor elikely to acutallly need isnurance!!")

And since the lower classes (ie those who cannot afford genetic engineering) are more numerous, it follows that democratic governments will regulate against said discrimination. In theory...

yeh, i'm glad you said "in theory..." because in the past the govt has not seemed to care too much for the disadvantaged.

Do you value individualism as the result of your own judgement and opinion, or is it just that your environment taught you to value individualism?

For me, it's as a result of both. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who have been taught to value individualism, but they deicde not too. For me, society in general has taught me to value individualism, and that, along with my own understanding and appreciaiton of what i beleieve to be good/bad, has led me to value indivualism.

But the whole basis from my point of view is "ignorance is bliss" - the World State has no wars, no violence, evyerone gets along with each other, if it means giving up my indiivudality/knowledge but be HAPPY, I'd do it in a second. You may think "but it's hollow happiness" but if you take the context of the book into consideration, you wouldn't know it's hollow happiness, it is ultiamtely happiness as you are programmed to feel happy in your position.

But the thing about BNW is that the people are only happy because they have been programmed to think that they are happy. Through our insight into bernard, helmholtz and lenina's thoguhts and emotions we are able to see that not everyone is truly happy. Through these characters we're also shown that THEY know that they aren't happy (although they dont know why exactly it is). Also, yes it IS hollow happiness and they don;t know better..... but just the fact that they don't know better should make you question whether their life is fulfilling. They have no emotions. They have no creativity. They have no love. They only have their false sense of happyness.

Why is nature good? Why is indiviudalism good? Why is freedom and "humanity" good? So far it's only caused war and violence in this current world no?

nature, individualism, freedom and humanity are not the causes of war. The cause of war is man, and our desire for power.

How do you come to the conclusion that nature, of all things, caused war?? Also i can see why you may think why freedom has caused war. But it is the LACK OF freedom that has caused war. It is man's inability to grant equality, justice and freedom that has caused war. If the world was a completely just society which allowed eqaulity and freedom to everyone. then there would be no war to gain this freeodm would their. This logic is the same as your "if everyone was happy there would be no need for war" argument.

 

[tommykins]

But the thing about BNW is that the people are only happy because they have been programmed to think that they are happy. Through our insight into bernard, helmholtz and lenina's thoguhts and emotions we are able to see that not everyone is truly happy. Through these characters we're also shown that THEY know that they aren't happy (although they dont know why exactly it is). Also, yes it IS hollow happiness and they don;t know better..... but just the fact that they don't know better should make you question whether their life is fulfilling. They have no emotions. They have no creativity. They have no love. They only have their false sense of happyness.

Exactly, if they're programmed to be happy, then they don't really care about anything else. The definition of them being happy comes from Mustapha Mond whom (correct me if I'm wrong) was not programmed and he himself sees the advantages of the BNW despite him loving science/knowledge himself. And the question is - why should their lives be fulfilling? Why must life have a purpose? And their false snse of happiness is happiness to them, call it what you want, but we sure as hell know they're not sad or despise their position (1% do [based on Helmholtz etc, so I'm rounding off error rate], but thats pretty much negligble)

nature, individualism, freedom and humanity are not the causes of war. The cause of war is man, and our desire for power.

How do you come to the conclusion that nature, of all things, caused war?? Also i can see why you may think why freedom has caused war. But it is the LACK OF freedom that has caused war. It is man's inability to grant equality, justice and freedom that has caused war. If the world was a completely just society which allowed eqaulity and freedom to everyone. then there would be no war to gain this freeodm would their. This logic is the same as your "if everyone was happy there would be no need for war" argument.

Nature - fighting over land.
Individualism - "I am an indivudal and whoever disagrees with me is wrong."
Freedom - I" have the right to abuse you because that's what I think, then theres always a handful of people that take their "freedom" to a bigger scale and start using violence." The main ideal is, if they're able to think what they want, it is human NATURE to oppose any threats to your ideal, competition is a part of human nature and competition is able to upraor war and violence.

This logic is the same as your "if everyone was happy there would be no need for war" argument.

Except happiness/stability =/= freedom.
Freedom comes with the prospect of doing whatever you want, whenever you want - with the emotions experienced in one world, imagine if you were simply angry one day and were physically agressive to evyerone, but that's okay- don't revoke your freedom becuase its rightfully yours, despite the possible chaos it may bring.


PS. I'd also like to point out that the fact that we've been raised in this context, we are too accustomed to rational thought and emotions that any idea of being rid of it seems detrimental. My idea is, if I was raised in the World State, would I feel negative emotions as I do "here" ?

 

[quixote studios]

When i say that the implementation of Eugenics in modern society will further the gap between social classes, i'm referring mainly to the fact that these processes will be very expensive and so only the wealthy or semi-wealthy will be able to afford it. Thus those that are wealthy have the chance to eradicate undesirable qualities form their children, and eventually form their gene pool, whilst the remainder of society who will be unable to afford this process will have many genetic disorders. Also, no doubt, the price for health insurance/ life insurance will be more expensive for those that are not born through the help of eugenics, and so those unable to afford it may also need to payh extra for health insurance. If the insurance companies are considering the introduction of DNA testing to differentiate between the "healthy" and those that are likely to actually need insurance, chances are that they will also introduce a test to deffirentiate between those who were bron through the help of eugenics 9the "healthy") and those not (and therefore mor elikely to acutallly need isnurance!!")

Health insurance companies already look at genetics, ie your family's medical history. Insurance companies
exist to make money. The more chance you have of getting sick, the more premium they're going to charge to cover that.

But the thing about BNW is that the people are only happy because they have been programmed to think that they are happy. Through our insight into bernard, helmholtz and lenina's thoguhts and emotions we are able to see that not everyone is truly happy. Through these characters we're also shown that THEY know that they aren't happy (although they dont know why exactly it is). Also, yes it IS hollow happiness and they don;t know better..... but just the fact that they don't know better should make you question whether their life is fulfilling. They have no emotions. They have no creativity. They have no love. They only have their false sense of happyness.

Incidently, your last few lines describe modern society remarkably well...

nature, individualism, freedom and humanity are not the causes of war. The cause of war is man, and our desire for power.

How do you come to the conclusion that nature, of all things, caused war?? Also i can see why you may think why freedom has caused war. But it is the LACK OF freedom that has caused war. It is man's inability to grant equality, justice and freedom that has caused war. If the world was a completely just society which allowed eqaulity and freedom to everyone. then there would be no war to gain this freeodm would their. This logic is the same as your "if everyone was happy there would be no need for war" argument.

What is nature, but man's inability to grant equality, justice and freedom? What is man but a jealous, pretty creature who wants only more? If the world was completely just, then man would not exist. Lack of freedom breeds nothing but desire for freedom. Lack of freedom is a neccessary evil, so that freedom may be fought for, may be bled for. Freedom is only true when it is constantly reaffirmed, revigoured and sanctified by the blood of revolutionaries.

 

[lasnAy]

And the question is - why should their lives be fulfilling? Why must life have a purpose? And their false snse of happiness is happiness to them, call it what you want, but we sure as hell know they're not sad or despise their position (1% do [based on Helmholtz etc, so I'm rounding off error rate], but thats pretty much negligble)

Then whats the point of living? why should we even have humans in the world if we are just programmed to be a specific way and our aim is to allow the cycle to continue? indiviuality and creativity/art etc give meaning and give people goals to work towards etc.

Nature - fighting over land.
Individualism - "I am an indivudal and whoever disagrees with me is wrong."
Freedom - I" have the right to abuse you because that's what I think, then theres always a handful of people that take their "freedom" to a bigger scale and start using violence." The main ideal is, if they're able to think what they want, it is human NATURE to oppose any threats to your ideal, competition is a part of human nature and competition is able to upraor war and violence.

fighting over land: humans are the reason for this fighting. Nature exists in ahrmony with eveyrhting else in the world (witha nimals, with the rain, with the sun etc). it is mankinds fault for wanting to conquer the land. I'm sure if mankind was smart and epacefule nough we too could live in harmony with nature.

Your argument for individualism is also flawed as it is mankind who has to think in a selfish way to say ""I am an indivudal and whoever disagrees with me is wrong."....... people can be individualistic and sitll embrace/accept the opinions of others. It is mankinds arrogance, not their individuality, that makes them think this way. Same goes for why your argument for 'freedom' is flawed.



Except happiness/stability =/= freedom.
Freedom comes with the prospect of doing whatever you want, whenever you want - with the emotions experienced in one world, imagine if you were simply angry one day and were physically agressive to evyerone, but that's okay- don't revoke your freedom becuase its rightfully yours, despite the possible chaos it may bring. [/quote]
By freedom, i don't expect people to be free to do whatever they like. That would mean that i am encouraging the allowance of murder because "people should be free to do so if they want".... but i'm not!.... You do realise that there cna be balance between the extreme outlook on freedom that your taking on and the lack of freedom in BNW. I.e. take our current society (or atleast the ideal version of our current society) where many of the essential freedoms are granted, but those such as killing others and acting in a manner which is abusive/degragating to others is illegal. These essential freedoms also include the right to education, the right to make decisions for yourself, the right to embrace in anture of you want, the right to dance/paint/draw/run or whatever else it is you want to do.

PS. I'd also like to point out that the fact that we've been raised in this context, we are too accustomed to rational thought and emotions that any idea of being rid of it seems detrimental. My idea is, if I was raised in the World State, would I feel negative emotions as I do "here" ?

well of course you wouldn't feel negative emotions in the context of BNW. That is purely only because you are programmed not to.This brings me back to what i said earlier about 'what is the point of mankinds existence if we our end result is already predetermined and our sole purpose is to simply keep the system going. You would have made no real contirbution to the world or to the advancement of mankind or anythin else for that amtter... so whats the point of the continuity of mankind then?

Also, i think rather than just looking at it from the outlook of one context, you should try and look at it from an ominescent viewpoint.

 

[ccc123]

Seeing as how the God and Abortion threads have bloated into obscuritism, I'll throw in a more specific conversation piece.

Eugenics: Do you support it/oppose it? Why?

Before someone goes and godwins this on the first reply, let me clarify.

Positive involves promotion of "good" genes or genetic traits. There are varying levels of this, from genetic screening at birth to transhumanism to (speculative and scifi-ish) human improvement programs ie social/genetic engineering on a macro level.

Negative on the other hand is more social engineering, as in the removal from the gene pool of "undesirables", to quote the early 20th century, via sterilisation, institutionalisation and/or more direct and gaseous methods.

Throw in your thoughts

Too Nazi-ish for my liking. I mean, who decides what defines 'good genes'? I do, however, support engineering when it comes strictly to degenerative genetic disorders.

 

[lasnAy]

Health insurance companies already look at genetics, ie your family's medical history. Insurance companies
exist to make money. The more chance you have of getting sick, the more premium they're going to charge to cover that.

yehhh..... and is the gap in our social classes not further widened??

Incidently, your last few lines describe modern society remarkably well...

how is it that you can see our present society as not having any emotions, love etc but you fail to see the very real lack of emotions, love etc. in BNW?

What is man but a jealous, pretty creature who wants only more?

exactly why nature/individualism is not the cause of war, but rather mankind. (particularly in relation to tommykins' point above)

If the world was completely just, then man would not exist.

My whole point is that the world is NOT completely just, and that is WHY war exists. But the reason why the world is not just is hugely as a result of mankind.

 

[ccc123]

@ what does being an individual mean to you? Think about this: you say that you value love, individualism, etc, because your upbringing promoted these values. What if this was not the case? Is individualism the cause of your valuing of individualism, or is it societal norms that instills this?.

Now this is a really good point. Anyone who does/has done the Individual and Society in Ext Eng will understand. When in comes to individualism, is it something intrinsic to the human psyche, or is it a result of the social context? Is individualism an illusion? Don't apparently 'individulaistic' beliefs have to stem from some otehr influence? Is anything ever original or individual?

 

[tommykins]

Now this is a really good point. Anyone who does/has done the Individual and Society in Ext Eng will understand. When in comes to individualism, is it something intrinsic to the human psyche, or is it a result of the social context? Is individualism an illusion? Don't apparently 'individulaistic' beliefs have to stem from some otehr influence? Is anything ever original or individual?

Postmodernism - eveyrthing is a remake of something before it.