"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil," Ayn Rand, author of Anthem, once said. This being said, being in the middle of self rights and the majority vote would never work for it is evil. It is only evil because of the way nothing can progress and after all progress is the main part of a society. Choosing a side is the first step to a better society, but more importantly its the side you choose to follow. Objectivism is the route one should pursue to find a better tomorrow. Objectivism should be held higher than collectivism. Collectivism does not allow society to move forward and if anything is accomplished, it takes a long time for an idea to flourish. One example of this is how long it took for all the brothers to agree upon the Candle. For example,"It took fifty years to secure the approval of all the Councils for the Candle, and to decide upon the number needed, and to re-fit the Pans so as to make candles instead of torches," (Rand 74). That is a ridiculous time to wait for an invention to be agreed upon. What is even worse is how sometimes great ideas get totally rejected just because the majority didn't agree. This can be seen in, "'Many men in the Homes of the Scholars have had strange new ideas in the past,' said Solidarity 8-1164, 'but when the majority of their brother Scholars voted against them, they abandoned their ideas, as all men must'," (Rand 73). Collectivism does not push societal advancement and therefore should be second to objectivism. The sense of empowerment that comes with objectivism allows workers to strive for themselves. Productivity, in turn, increases. Working for oneself and not for the common good, that collectivism suggests,... ... middle of paper ... ...discovery and self-love comes from the peace of the one word which is I. Prometheus explains this: "And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant joy and peace and pride. "This god, this one word: 'I,'" (Rand 97). The teachings of objectivism include the self-discovery and self-thought that bring happiness to one's being. Objectivism should be held higher than collectivism. This is to ensure societal advancement and self-empowerment. Of course, happiness is also important to the individual and objectivism will bring this. Instead of being trod over by the masses, one must stand up for themselves to ensure that they above others can be happy in their life. Is it really fair to let others pull you down? Works Cited Rand, Ayn. Anthem. New York: Dutton, 1995. Print.
I never even thought about this word “individualism” before I came to America. Instead of collective, normal is the way I considered as my culture, and for American culture, I would say they are selfish and unkindly sometimes back then. However, after my 2-year study here and all the research I’ve been read for this paper, now I say that neither individualism nor collectivism is purely bad or good.
Ayn Rand, in Anthem, illustrates a futuristic, socialist society. In the novel, Rand destroys any sense of individuality and describes the social setbacks endured after living ‘only for the brotherhood’. The individual person fails to exist and is but a ‘we’ and recognized by a word and a series of numbers rather than a name. Additionally, she describes the horrors encountered within this different system of life: from reproduction methods to punishments. Through the life of Equality 7-2521, Rand demonstrates a person’s journey from obedience to exile in this socialist society. Throughout the entire novel, Rand criticizes Marxist theory as she demonstrates socialism’s failure to suppress revolution, thwart material dialectic, and its detriment to humanity.
In Ayn Rand’s famous, or in some circles, infamous, story Anthem, the differing ideologies of objectivism and collectivism are pit against each other. With objectivism being so tight knit and different from the society in the book, it seems that it would be almost impossible to truly follow in its entirety. However, Anthem, as a whole, doesn’t violate the ideals of Rand’s philosophy of objectivism.
The word collectivism often makes people cringe. Overall, there is a general fear of not being able to make personal decisions in America. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, collectivism can be defined as; emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity (“Collectivism”). In Anthem, Ayn Rand describes an extreme collectivist society.
This article provides me a detailed research on a group of American and Chinese adults with plenty of data and analysis. They provided a lot of real and objective opinion on the comparison between individualism and collectivism. The fact of the whole respondents are students gives me an advantage on finding better ways to understand and use this research in my
The debate over individualism and collectivism has been the fundamental conflict both in political philosophy and in ethics. Philosophers such as Ayn Rand think that human beings are fundamentally individuals, and that everyone exists for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. But it is very rare for one to live completely alone by himself. The entire human race would not be able to evolve and reproduce, if humans were individualistic in nature, and each individual needs some form of support from group to enhance its own odds of surviving. Humans naturally are in need of each other to survive, to reproduce, and to protect their offspring. Such needs are innately built into every human being, and
...bol of individualism. As reason defines, it’s sensible to define individuals, individually; as separate entities. Collectivism, on the other hand, undermines this principle. Ironically, this lack of reason is exactly what allows for it to achieve political and societal success—by utilizing the undefeatable irrationality.
Individualism and collectivism are conflicting beliefs with the nature of humans, society, and the relationships between them, however, these ideologies are not diametrically opposing since both are essential towards balancing beliefs from becoming extremes. The first source represents the idea of collectivism and suggests that the society must focus on moving their viewpoint from ‘me’ into ‘we’ in the interest of survival and progression. This perspective presents the idea that the individual’s advantage belongs not only to the person, but to the group or society of which he or she is a part of, and that the individual’s values and goals are for the group’s “greater good.” Likewise, Karl Marx’s principle of communism emphasizes in the elimination
The proper relationship between the individual's interests and the common good is a delicate balancing act that political philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Sophocles have tried to define. For philosophers such as Socrates and Plato, the common good trumps the individual interest when those interests interfere with what they believe is right for society as a whole. For others like Aristotle and Locke, a consensus on what the common good is must be defined within the reality that individual interests exists; meaning, they cannot be completely discarded for the good of society. I believe that in a free society, where the common good to doesn't have to be forced upon its citizens, the common good should impose upon the individual's interest only as much as citizens will allow without feeling such impositions are unreasonable restrictions on their lives.
It is human nature to see those who are different and group them into distinct categories. The distinction of Individualism versus Collectivism is one that is currently being studied extensively. On one side, individualism sees individuals as the fundamental unit of a society. Individuals are supposed to be unique, independent, and most importantly, willing to put their own interests above all others. On the other hand, collectivism views the basic building block of society as social groups, stressing the interpersonal bonds between people. Collectivist values dictate that group goals and values have higher precedence than an individual’s. Due to the seemingly polar opposite nature of these ideologies, it is inevitable that they will be compared to see which is more beneficial to the country and its people. Some might point to the success of the US, an extremely individualistic country, in support of individualistic values. They will point to the freedom of choice and diversity that individualism boasts of. Others stress the flaws of the US in response, and while both sides do have their truths, the costs that come with individualistic values are too great to be ignored. Highly individualistic attitudes have caused many large scale problems which have long been identified as difficult to resolve issues. These problems include, but are not limited to, promoting aggressive acts, creating an obsession with social power, and allowing a system of injustice to be born.
All in all, the greatest danger to society is this idea of collectivism and the suppression of basic human rights that go along with it. The idea that an individual should not put their priorities ahead of their parties or state is completely absurd and will harm the human race in creating the next big invention. Freedom and Capitalism drives innovation it has cured diseases and built the worlds biggest skyscrapers. When you eliminate that and take everything under state control all you do is destroy any incentive for people to work harder. This also sets the stage for a dictator to take control and keep control with brutal means. The vivisection morality is still around and until more people begin embracing the idea of individualism around the world will we finally reach a utopia.
Individualism from the transcendentalist era is very different then it is in the modern day. In the transcendentalist era, everyone believed that the person is more important than the society. You see this in self reliance where Emerson says “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string. Accept the place the divine providence has found for you, the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events” (Emerson par. 3). In this quote, i believe the emerson is saying that you know what's best for yourself and you should follow your heart, but society is always going to try to tell you something different. In the modern day, people rely more on the
The art of collectivism has been instilled in our minds since the very beginnings of society. For instance, in the Bible, Jesus Christ himself gave up his life on the cross for the well-being of those around him. Other verses in the bible contribute to the same idea that you should treat everyone as your family and do for them as you would want done unto yourself. “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because o...
Collectivism and individualism, both have a fair share of issues. The articles that exemplify both collectivism and individuality are “1984”, “Anthem” and a poem called “Unknown Citizen”. Collectivism and individualism have an even amount of dilemmas, both collectivism and individualism come from totally different perspectives. The Struggles associated with a collectivism is that everything, every action, every thought, every person acts as a whole in unison, so there isn’t any room for different opinions and thoughts, as for an individualist society people have to sacrifice themselves both physically, mentally and overcome their
This dimension describes the relationship between the individual and the collectivism that prevails in a given society. Individualism means mostly caring of oneself and one’s immediate family. In contrast, collectivism relates to caring for both oneself and other groups.