Autonomy versus Interdependence

[Peace]

All posters are welcome and all opinions are valid.

Definitions:

Autonomy: the capacity or right of a rational individual to make an informed decision without coercion.

Interdependence: the condition that individuals are mutually dependent and reliant upon one another and subject to the consequences of each other's actions.

Discussion:

These words relate to a common debate within political philosophy, namely how should power be distributed to recognized the freedom of the individual within a society where their actions are inherently influenced by and create consequences for the larger society? This question leads to many different contentions...

-If a society provides for the basic needs and protection of an individual, is the individual obligated to contribute back to society if their choices lead them to be successful?

-Should society seek to protect individuals should they fail to consider or disregard the risks of their choices and it leads them to failure?

-Given that diversity often leads to greater conflict, should society try to bring individuals into greater conformity so as to minimize conflict within society?

-Should society as a whole practice its own autonomy and seek not to interfere in the affairs of other societies unless provoked by aggression?

-Since human beings live in a confined space sharing a common environment which we refer to as our planet and an individual's actions could have environmental consequences for others that range across the entire globe, does society have an obligation to protect the environment from the actions of the individual?

 

[barbad0s]

At least in some ways, we are all interdependent no matter what, assuming that humans share a common environment with one another. I am someone who idealizes autonomy, because being "subject to the consequences of each other's actions" repels me -- ideally, I would want to have to rely on people as little as possible so I wouldn't have to deal with their BS, and also so I wouldn't have to subject other people to my BS. That doesn't mean that with autonomy, people can't still care for and protect others. Now, whether one "should" or "should not" do whatever is a debate that is never going to reach conclusion because it really depends on ones values ... different people will see benefit in different methods, and I don't think there's one true encompassing ideal or one size fits all for all of society.

 

[Peace]

Now, whether one "should" or "should not" do whatever is a debate that is never going to reach conclusion because it really depends on ones values ... different people will see benefit in different methods, and I don't think there's one true encompassing ideal or one size fits all for all of society.

Good point. I've always been troubled by this notion that personal values determine such fundamental questions for each of us. I don't think people choose their values, I think they are largely determined by socialization and experiences, and as such, it is detrimental to the idea of free will that our values determine our perspective in regards how to best live with others. It is almost downright fatalistic. Of course I do believe that people can choose experiences that might reshape their values over a long period of time, and so I may just have to settle for a very limited sense of free will.

It's also almost infuriated how limited humans are in their scope. Values determine our perception of the world around us, which in turn influences how we interpret the facts we encounter. Two different people will often interpret the same set of facts in completely different ways as a result of their respective set of values. The unfortunate result of this is that they are then forever condemned to talk past each other. Only if they are so fortunate as to recognize the underlying values of the other person will they have any hope in understanding why the other person interprets the facts the way they do, and even then they are unlikely to agree due to their own values. Maximizing interpersonal human understanding would seem to only serve the purpose of recognizing how little we can actually agree upon because of the different ways we have been shaped by our past experiences and socialization.

 

[barbad0s]

Two different people will often interpret the same set of facts in completely different ways as a result of their respective set of values.

Because of this, do "facts" really exist? And if natural facts or objective reality does exist, is there any use in attempting to acknowledge them (in terms of human relationships)?

The unfortunate result of this is that they are then forever condemned to talk past each other. Only if they are so fortunate as to recognize the underlying values of the other person will they have any hope in understanding why the other person interprets the facts the way they do, and even then they are unlikely to agree due to their own values. Maximizing interpersonal human understanding would seem to only serve the purpose of recognizing how little we can actually agree upon because of the different ways we have been shaped by our past experiences and socialization.

Hmm... yes. And what do you think about that? Do we have to agree for society to function, or can we just agree that we're all human and leave it at that? Let the people who are willing to accomodate others accomodate and otherwise give free will to all, or confine everybody into living by values that they may not agree with, so that all of society can hypothetically function better as a result? Because in the end, we all have to deal with one anothers values and be affected by them in some way or another. It's not something one can escape, living with other humans. And even not living with other humans, human actions on the environment will eventually spread to affect one's hermit cave dwelling lol. We are under one roof in this planet and there's nothing we can do about it.

 

[Sebastian]

I tried to answer this but it ended up coming down to free will... I usually run for the hills when it comes down to that.

Actually all this value / politics / world view / psychology stuff seems to boil down very often to how much free will one thinks we all have.

Some people seem really uncaring and inconsiderate to me... but then I learn that they think other people have more free will than I think they do (hence they feel they can judge that person because they feel their life circumstance bears little on their ability to choose). Actually when push comes to shove I think free will doesn't exist at all... but that becomes a pointless discussion really and I exist for all intents and purposes above that sphere of understanding and presume that people have some choice.

Experience determines values, values determine experience... things never flow in just one direction. I think much of politics and belief comes from people taking a stance somewhere along the line:

Experience -----> Values

or

Values -----> Experience


But yeah... that should be a circle to me... or perhaps a never ending linear process of discrete interactions:

Experience -----> Values -----> Experience -----> Values -----> Experience -----> Values -----> Experience -----> Values ----> etc.


Each experience shapes one's values, and one's values determine one's choices to have an experience.

Of course it becomes more complicated when you consider the reality that everyone has those time lines running at the same time and we're all crossing over into each others... just as you reading what I wrote here is impacting your experiences.

Actually I've thought about what you wrote there:

Two different people will often interpret the same set of facts in completely different ways as a result of their respective set of values. The unfortunate result of this is that they are then forever condemned to talk past each other. Only if they are so fortunate as to recognize the underlying values of the other person will they have any hope in understanding why the other person interprets the facts the way they do, and even then they are unlikely to agree due to their own values. Maximizing interpersonal human understanding would seem to only serve the purpose of recognizing how little we can actually agree upon because of the different ways we have been shaped by our past experiences and socialization.

That makes a lot of sense to me... and to me the best way to get the tangled mess of interactions to the point where we can interact in more advanced ways as a collective is education about the dynamics of human interactions... to understand why we behave the way we do... the understanding of HOW and WHY we think and interact... it should be as celebrated and cherished as "learning to hunt" or "starting a fire"... and I think it was in those days, it was called religion... but we need something more now.

 

[Peace]

Because of this, do "facts" really exist? And if natural facts or objective reality does exist, is there any use in attempting to acknowledge them (in terms of human relationships)?

Yes, facts clearly do exist. If you walk out in front of a moving car, you are going to die regardless of whether or not you believe the car exists.

Humans are also incapable of ignoring facts or not communicating facts. Even when we say nothing, we are still communicating something. We simply have to accept that people are going to inherently interpret facts differently and seek to understand the underlying values or beliefs that influences the way the facts are interpreted.

Hmm... yes. And what do you think about that? Do we have to agree for society to function, or can we just agree that we're all human and leave it at that? Let the people who are willing to accomodate others accomodate and otherwise give free will to all, or confine everybody into living by values that they may not agree with, so that all of society can hypothetically function better as a result? Because in the end, we all have to deal with one anothers values and be affected by them in some way or another. It's not something one can escape, living with other humans. And even not living with other humans, human actions on the environment will eventually spread to affect one's hermit cave dwelling lol. We are under one roof in this planet and there's nothing we can do about it.

Indeed. Humans also seem to have an inborn psychological need for one another that is so vital that we would eventually die or go mad if forced to live in prolonged isolation. So we are not only stuck with each other, but we need each other. Our ability to function as a society seems to be contingent on our ability to agree to disagree, to compromise, or to collaborate. When these strategies fail, we still have the wonderful option of killing each other, often in large enough numbers for one group to assert dominance over the other.

Human relationships are a bitter medicine. They are essential for our survival and perhaps even for finding existential meaning in our existence but they are repulsive to the ego which seeks to satisfy its own needs irrespective of the needs of others. I would say that people need to practice detachment. They need to recognize the value of relationships to their long term health, but also recognize the negative aspects of relationships so as not to become emotionally invested in agreement or approval. Recognizing the inherent imperfection of human understanding is perhaps the best way to emotionally cope with the reality that individuals will often seek different methods or beliefs, sometimes even ones that would appear irrational or destructive. Rather than fight it, human beings should probably embrace that conflict and disagreement is an inherent part of being human.

 

[bickelz]

-If a society provides for the basic needs and protection of an individual, is the individual obligated to contribute back to society if their choices lead them to be successful?

Well, they should contribute at least as much as everybody else did in order to provide the basic needs and protections for others that were provided to them before they were successful. (i.e. taxes)

-Should society seek to protect individuals should they fail to consider or disregard the risks of their choices and it leads them to failure?

Well, I guess it depends on the situation. My answer for economic endeavors would be different from certain social ones.

-Given that diversity often leads to greater conflict, should society try to bring individuals into greater conformity so as to minimize conflict within society?

I struggle with this a lot and I'm kind of hum-ho about it. I think there are certain things people should do in order to minimize conflict within their public life (i.e. language barriers) but I don't believe in forcing people to assimilate. This is a hot button question and I actually wrote an essay surrounding this topic in my English class like two weeks ago. I had to compare two texts which had differing arguments about assimilating with the public language or keeping the sense of self (identity) by basically rejecting public language.

Specifically with language, it is important but not something you should rely on for your sense of identity because it essentially only serves the purpose for communication and if you are not able to communicate with others because they all speak a different language than you, you have the wrong tool for the job. You can't paint a house with a screwdriver or change your oil with a hammer.

-Should society as a whole practice its own autonomy and seek not to interfere in the affairs of other societies unless provoked by aggression?

I think so. When I interviewed to be a Resident Adviser in the dorms last spring, one of the questions they asked was "What would you do to promote diversity/other cultures?"

This is the stupidest question to ask. I'm a 20 year old, white, middle-class male. The only thing that sets me apart from that crowd and gives me minority status is that I'm gay but I'm hell bent on not having to ever pull that card because it's bs. How am I supposed to promote other cultures that are not my own? I can't actively do that, it's not my job, it's the job of the other person who is a part of that culture. How should I promote African-American culture? Asian-American? Mexican American?

Derp. The best policy is a laid back one where the motto is acceptance. It's passive, not active. If a culture is dying that is not mine, it's not my job to do something about it.

-Since human beings live in a confined space sharing a common environment which we refer to as our planet and an individual's actions could have environmental consequences for others that range across the entire globe, does society have an obligation to protect the environment from the actions of the individual?

Yeah.

 

[Matt3737]

Because of this, do "facts" really exist? And if natural facts or objective reality does exist, is there any use in attempting to acknowledge them (in terms of human relationships)?

Logical inference would establish itself as fact if you argue 'reductio ad absurdum,' i.e. acknowledging that only subjective experience is provable causes itself to be a factual statement.

 

[Peace]

I tried to answer this but it ended up coming down to free will... I usually run for the hills when it comes down to that.

Actually all this value / politics / world view / psychology stuff seems to boil down very often to how much free will one thinks we all have.

Some people seem really uncaring and inconsiderate to me... but then I learn that they think other people have more free will than I think they do (hence they feel they can judge that person because they feel their life circumstance bears little on their ability to choose). Actually when push comes to shove I think free will doesn't exist at all... but that becomes a pointless discussion really and I exist for all intents and purposes above that sphere of understanding and presume that people have some choice.

Experience determines values, values determine experience... things never flow in just one direction. I think much of politics and belief comes from people taking a stance somewhere along the line:

Experience -----> Values

or

Values -----> Experience


But yeah... that should be a circle to me... or perhaps a never ending linear process of discrete interactions:

Experience -----> Values -----> Experience -----> Values -----> Experience -----> Values -----> Experience -----> Values ----> etc.


Each experience shapes one's values, and one's values determine one's choices to have an experience.

Ah, the old story of "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?" I've lost myself for hours in introspection on the topic of free will versus determinism. I tend to think of it as a spiral rather than as a circle or linear progression. It is repetitious but it does change in a common direction.

Of course it becomes more complicated when you consider the reality that everyone has those time lines running at the same time and we're all crossing over into each others... just as you reading what I wrote here is impacting your experiences.

Actually I've thought about what you wrote there:



That makes a lot of sense to me... and to me the best way to get the tangled mess of interactions to the point where we can interact in more advanced ways as a collective is education about the dynamics of human interactions... to understand why we behave the way we do... the understanding of HOW and WHY we think and interact... it should be as celebrated and cherished as "learning to hunt" or "starting a fire"... and I think it was in those days, it was called religion... but we need something more now.

Religion has long served a vital purpose to humanity in bringing people together in understanding beyond the limitations of geographical regions. Religion appears to be based largely on an evolving intuitive understanding of human interaction. Social sciences like psychology could probably be considered the latest step in this evolution. I don't think religion will ever be replaced in this capacity in much the same way I don't think fiction books will ever be replaced by encyclopedias. The emotional significance of stories and rituals are important to human beings since they allow us to communicate complex meaning and ideas in simple ways.

However, I feel the questions you present have already been answered. The how and why we think and interact is the result of our evolution. We are social animals that learned to survive in highly localized tribes and each tribe adapted to its surrounding environment in different ways. We continue to form groups based on commonalities in order to maintain that sense of belonging to a tribe that is such a vital component to the human identity.

 

[barbad0s]

Logical inference would establish itself as fact if you argue 'reductio ad absurdum,' i.e. acknowledging that only subjective experience is provable causes itself to be a factual statement.

Lol yeah I figured as I was writing that.

I guess my point was: how far do you think it's reasonable to go to try to impose your reality onto others?

 

[Peace]

Lol yeah I figured as I was writing that.

I guess my point was: how far do you think it's reasonable to go to try to impose you "reality" onto others?

Given that is typically the point of child rearing...pretty far.

Parents generally try to pass down their values and beliefs to their children, with varying success. For better or for worse, that socialization will forever influence how children interpret the facts in the world as they grow to be adults. Adults can indoctrinate children into their world view up to the point that the child's subjective experience leads them to question the tenets of that reality.

 

[Matt3737]

I find that people tend to balance their senses of rationality/irrationality as diversely as reality will allow.

And as far as my own imposing sense of reality; I enjoy and actively encourage bending people to my will. =)

Of course, it's for your own good. lol

 

[barbad0s]

Given that is typically the point of child rearing...pretty far.

Parents generally try to pass down their values and beliefs to their children, with varying success. For better or for worse, that socialization will forever influence how children interpret the facts in the world as they grow to be adults. Adults can indoctrinate children into their world view up to the point that the child's subjective experience leads them to question the tenets of that reality.

But does it make sense -- whether with children, or other people? They are already going to be interpreting what is being presented to them in an affected way according to their compiled experiences anyway. How can you really set up a reality for somebody? What is the point in trying?

Control? Should a person not have their freedom/inevitability to create their own world in their mind respected? Because other peoples realities and values affect you, so you should try to influence them? Will that attempt to influence really help you or them?

LOL i don't know if i know what i'm talking about anymore

 

[Peace]

But does it make sense -- whether with children, or other people? They are already going to be interpreting what is being presented to them in an affected way according to their compiled experiences anyway. How can you really set up a reality for somebody? What is the point in trying?

I think socialization does have a significant effect, particularly in younger years. You cannot perfectly shape another individual's world view to be the same as your own since they will have different experiences or may challenge it simply for the sake of challenging it, but you can influence to a great degree when it is still being formed. But you are right in that once a person has established their world view, it is quite difficult, if not impossible, to change it through communication. They would almost certainly have to live through different experiences that would challenge their world view, and even then they would most likely only slightly change their world view to encompass the new information.

Control? Should a person not have their freedom/inevitability to create their own world in their mind respected? Because other peoples realities and values affect you, so you should try to influence them? Will that attempt to influence really help you or them?

Interesting questions. Of course, I think if you really wanted to change the way a person sees the world, you would probably have better luck by changing their environment than by challenging their world view directly. For example, if someone hates the idea of dancing, you aren't going to get anywhere by arguing with them. However, if you take them out for a few dance lessons, they might change their perception. Parents do the same with children. They try to create good experiences for their children that will lead them to accept the traditions and values of the family.

 

[Peace]

Specifically with language, it is important but not something you should rely on for your sense of identity because it essentially only serves the purpose for communication and if you are not able to communicate with others because they all speak a different language than you, you have the wrong tool for the job. You can't paint a house with a screwdriver or change your oil with a hammer.

Language has such a profound affect on how we percieve and interpret the world that it is hard to imagine it not as an aspect of identity.

 

[bickelz]

Language has such a profound affect on how we percieve and interpret the world that it is hard to imagine it not as an aspect of identity.

Meh. Language is about expression ideas: communicating. It has little to do with perception, if anything.

 

[Norton]

The challenge for a civilized society is to find a balance between the rights of the individual as opposed to those of the group. Currently, in the US a paranoid schizophrenic has a license to kill at least one person before his right to self-determination is abridged and he is thrown into an asylum and medicated. The multi-millionaire whose company needs good roads, a modern infrastructure, an educated work force, and a legal system that works, should pay more in taxes than the working stiff he employs. After all, the multi-millionaire uses those things and benefits more from them than the middle class or blue collar worker. People need to be inculcated about individual rights but, also, individual responsibilities. Theodore Roosevelt strongly believed that those who were given more should give more.

 

[Peace]

Meh. Language is about expression ideas: communicating. It has little to do with perception, if anything.

I most certainly have to disagree. It has absolutely everything to do with perception.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-03/color-and-language

[video=youtube;4b71rT9fU-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b71rT9fU-I[/video]

 

[bickelz]

I most certainly have to disagree. It has absolutely everything to do with perception.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-03/color-and-language

[video=youtube;4b71rT9fU-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b71rT9fU-I[/video]

This is interesting but I think that A) it's just one instance of language influencing perception so to say that language has everything to do with perception is generalizing and B) that it starts coming down to where we locate the point at which someone perceives something.

With this example, they're basically saying that language causes you to perceive things differently because of your vocabularies ability to describe something. My problem with this having to do with perception is that these people are actually seeing the same wavelength as everyone else and therefore the same color (scientifically). They say there is no difference between the blue and green because they have just categorized them the same in their language. It's not so much a perception, just a name that they use to communicate what they see.

If they were to become fluent in English, would they all of the sudden start seeing the world of color differently? No, only the names would change because they still see the same colors.

 

[Peace]

This is interesting but I think that A) it's just one instance of language influencing perception so to say that language has everything to do with perception is generalizing and B) that it starts coming down to where we locate the point at which someone perceives something.

With this example, they're basically saying that language causes you to perceive things differently because of your vocabularies ability to describe something. My problem with this having to do with perception is that these people are actually seeing the same wavelength as everyone else and therefore the same color (scientifically). They say there is no difference between the blue and green because they have just categorized them the same in their language. It's not so much a perception, just a name that they use to communicate what they see.

If they were to become fluent in English, would they all of the sudden start seeing the world of color differently? No, only the names would change because they still see the same colors.

How come then on the end of the video they were unable to tell the difference between colors? How come they couldn't even see the blue square among the green squares?