samr

That's off topic already, I accept your distinction between social and eusocial animals. It is a very good tool to clarify the difference between an indvidualist and a lone-wolf. (Though I still think an individualist should lean to the lone-wolf more). ------------- Regarding bees : That is already a discussion in biology, and not in philosophy. There is a difference between want and "want". I know that human beings want. Bees are black boxes to us (to me, at least). I am not sure if they want or "want". To want, versus "want", you need to have a psychological desire, experienced somehow. I don't know about bees, if they have it. Maybe they are just robots? How do you know what are the mental states of a bee? A robot doesn't want. I am not saying bees are robots, but how do you tell? Robots don't have values.

owning. Anyway, I doubt in any legal sense, not protesting X to enlist Y in the army is an analogy to owning slaves. I admit - it is from the karmic point of view, that this disturbs me. I think it is a bad attitude to have, "bad karma". But I am really being irrational in my attitude towards buddhism, so I can't open a rational discussion here. Regarding slaves, when Gilad Shalit deal was made, I thought that since I have _some_ responsibility for sending him to the army, I should be in favor of him being released, taking the risk of terror. It was a very selfy feeling, that I do not want to live based upon depriving the rights of another. Problem is feeling I have this feeling only regarding people I have sympathy towards. Thanks, by the way.

Isn't there something rational, in having slaves?

Yes.

Alright, I think I understand where you are coming from. In the case of slaves, they don't work for their values; they have been indoctrinated. The soldiers in the army don't have a choice, they have been forced, implicitly or explicitly. So the example with your mother is invalid, and the example with the trees not related at all. (Though I am unable to formulate a rational criteria. If one posits that one should care for the values of the person that gives him something, it is possible to push it to the absurdity that to really know it, you need to read another person's mind. If you posit that one shouldn't - the slave example is an obvious absurdity to me. Something is wrong about having brainwashed slaves. )

It seems to me that animals are good metaphors. I am not sure we can understand their psychology in a literal sense (maybe the psychology of a dog. But a psychology of a bee?)

How can you compare your mother giving birth to you with what I wrote about in my post? For example, the slaves example. Don't you think there is a difference between this and oxygen\being born by a mother? This is really obvious. I really don't see how you can make the comparison in good faith.

Not the same. And you know it. (Slaves - example).

I think I know the real reason I am torn on this issue. I am happy that others protect me. When I think "Is it good for me? Is it rational? Do I derive a benefit from it", then my answer is yes. And I cannot bring myself to think anything else about it. I guess I am not really an individualist... Just a collectivist that doesn't want to play his part, when it comes to him. I just don't see any way around it, any way not to think that it is really good, really rational, and it really benefits me. I guess I wouldn't free slaves if I had them, I would be held by the idea that it is rational, it is good for me. (I wouldn't enslave anyone, but if someone was raised in a certain culture, and was indoctrinated (not by me) into believing slavery is good, then - why not? I don't do any harm, and it is not my business to go and I am not sure it is my bussiness to change other person's beliefs. Besides, i get a benefit from it, don't I?)

It doesn't _really_ make sense to speak of animals as individualist, or collectivist... We don't understand their psychology.

Michael E. Marrota, I was stating what I believe to be the method used in the sciences today, not necessarily the correct method. I think that the method is mostly statistical. Regarding am not sure that if we all use a certain way of thinking in everyday life, and need to use it in order to stay sane - it is a proof of its truth. There is a delicate line between this, and appeal to consequences, that I do not know how to pass. I don't think that the scientific method is the final arbiter of reality. Anything that would be the final arbiter of reality would be perfectly suited to describe every aspect of it. The scientific is not. It describes a part of reality, but it is open to question - with what precision. For example, I don't think you can understand human behaviour using the method of observation-hypothesis-experimentation, and statistics. (This was what I meant by "the scientific method").

Can you recommend me a reading list?

Xray, you are right.

The important thing is this : In "social" there is something more than in "many individuals". Of course many individuals can function together. But, if many individuals function together, no qualitative function is added. "Social" always implies a different quality. And you cannot deduce man's nature from biology. Biology is a science, questions of "what is the of nature something" are philosophic. For example, one can argue from buddhist premises that the nature of all things existing is "change". Why? Because everything existing changes, so change is the nature of existence. So the nature of man is his most basic quality, that what makes man man. Philosophy comes prior to science, and determines its scope. When one answers "what is the nature of man" generally,one can use a science (in the aristotelian sense of the word) to answer specifics. I think I have just invalidated my OP in the above paragraph. The fact that a man cannot survive as a baby is not a crucial fact of his nature, but a specific, scientific, observable fact.

I think that in most everyday uses of the term social it does imply something not individualistic. I try to use "friendly" instead. Man can be a friendly "animal", but not a social one.

It's all good advice, and I think you are right. But I still don't understand what can I do, given that I actually do rely on people protecting me (my ass), and I would be in trouble if not for them. Fairness. I guess fairness is not really a concept. I'd say that there is no such thing as fairness, it is an anti-concept in some sense. (Fairness negates the concept of causality). And also, it is collective-thinking, subtly. Fairness cannot exist among individuals. Well, I'm just too afraid to maintain that position publically.

__deleted.

No problem; I know I can be muddled sometimes. I didn't use the terms rational vs. social, I said individual vs. social. So did you, only after some time you switched to rational vs. social. I think that you can speak of individualism vs. collectivism as a world-view. In that sense, they are ideal types. And, I think that to every world-view, there should be some basic element of nature that identifies it. First-principles. So, as a world-view, is man primarily an individual or a social being? Independent or dependent? His brain seems to suggest the first, but the fact that he can't survive alone. As to whether man is an animal... This is a huge can of worms, I am not sure I want to get into it. I don't think that metaphysically man is an animal.

Maybe the terms "individual" and "social" are not well defined. For example, I think , that one's nature is independent or dependent, they are a dichotomy.

I think, I can provide a case, even though it would be hard to define it legally. Suppose I would read your book, and then retell it to my kid. I would use my own language (provided I understood your book), so in some sense, my story would be my own creation. If I read the book, and tell a similar story in another language, composing it by myself, it would also be ok. On the other hand, if I were to take this book, omit a few chapters, and reprint it, it wouldn't be ok. Why? I think that the main variable here is work. That, like you said, I labour in order to understand something, and labour again in order to produce something. So, mental labour is the characteristic that can determine if there was theft, or not. Even if it is hard to define it from a third-person point of view.

Alright. BUT, this involves a very different principle of induction than is used in the physical sciences. All induction in the physical sciences, AFAIK, are statistical. So you cannot induce any principles, only statistical probabilities. Howard Roark wouldn't say "With 99.5% certainity, this principles are correct".

I think every difference in values reflects a difference in metaphysics. I think so by because when I read good literature (not too often those days), I get the sense that one's values are one's deepest sense of life. And one's deepest sense of life is what reality is actually about. For example, arguing that social reality actually is about "The strongest survives", that this is the nature of social reality, doesn't imply certain values, but actually is certain values. Is this clear? Because social values and individualist values are different, the metaphysics they have to reflect, have to be different.

Michael, I don't think that saying the nature of man is "both individual and social" really means anything. It is just a contradiction. The only real system that is able to explain how man is metaphysically an individual that I know of is buddhism. In buddhism (my understanding is probably flawed; I twist buddhism to mean what I want it to mean, like a protestant does with the bible), man reincarnates; each human being has existed from time immemorial; Not just matter like in objectivism, but consciousness is an irreducible primary, and I guess that one could say that so is selfhood. In this sense, in buddhism, one could say, that it really is fair that one is born smarter, and the other more stupid, since it is the consequence of results of his previous actions. (Howard Roark in the next life would be different from Peter Keating; he would have much more to start with. AND INDEED, if the account of life of Howard Roark, and Peter Keating is true, then only reincarnation can explain why is it that they were born with such different personalities.

I think that maybe it is possible to argue that the life of a baby depends on a choice of the father and the mother, to have the baby, and a choice of the father and the mother of each other. So life is primarily independent.

Even so, if man is metaphyscially (primarily) a social animal, then the basis for selfishness is... what? Altruism is based on the idea that man is primarily a social animal. Egoism is based on the idea that man is primarily an individum.