|
Post by Smithee on Mar 19, 2012 16:38:45 GMT 10
Objectivism? Try Sociology.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 19, 2012 16:46:43 GMT 10
I wouldn't call three people a society.... It is a good start. Mother, father and child. Then you get extended families, bands, tribes and so on.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 19, 2012 23:18:23 GMT 10
It may be a good start but I just don't buy that it is a society. In any case it appears that we agree that society does not exist on its own.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 20, 2012 6:09:59 GMT 10
Perhaps a case of not seeing the forest for the trees?
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Mar 20, 2012 12:41:17 GMT 10
Regard the Tree of Life. The Sephirot are not to be understood in isolation but rather in relation to each other. The paths between them are as important as the Sephirot themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 20, 2012 13:23:45 GMT 10
In any case it appears that we agree that society does not exist on its own. I do not think anyone has said otherwise. The question was, where did society come from? Saying it comes from families makes more sense than saying it comes from the individual (singular). Another misleading aspect of your statement is, on the one hand, while society cannot exist without individuals (plural), it can exist without any one individual (singular). Indeed, your statement may be tautological, saying in effect, humans living together cannot happen without humans living together. On the other hand, while a mature human may separate itself from the company of other humans, it cannot reach that stage independently.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 20, 2012 14:22:35 GMT 10
I do apologize if my statements appeared to be misleading, purposefully or otherwise. No individual alone could be society. To remove any misleading statement of humans living together cannot happen without humans living together. I offer that living together was not learned but it was selected for. My small mind cannot imagine how it just happened without evolution.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 20, 2012 15:03:04 GMT 10
I do apologize if my statements appeared to be misleading, purposefully or otherwise. No individual alone could be society. You had said. True, but then again no society makes individuals. We seem to have the making of people down pat. It doesn't take a village, all it takes is a couple of moderately motivated people. To remove any misleading statement of humans living together cannot happen without humans living together. I offer that living together was not learned but it was selected for. My small mind cannot imagine how it just happened without evolution. Nobody here has questioned evolution. Did societies evolve through genes or memes? Either way societies were around long before humans and it was in that context each human was and is born and raised. The question is whether the social behaviour is now learned or innate? Psychologically do we still have any innate behaviours or instincts?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 20, 2012 17:32:05 GMT 10
Men build society and society builds men B.F. Skinner (Born this day 1904) Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both C Wright Mills (Died this day 1962)
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 21, 2012 13:53:53 GMT 10
Skinner also thought that he could build a perfect world if scientists were allowed to program people.
Genes, memes. What human society, which is the only one that matters because monkeys are not people, was around before humans.
|
|