Caleb Morton (#6)
As previously discussed,
Immanuel Kant was an outspoken supporter of individualism, learning through
personal experience, and using one's own understanding within our world to
better make ends of it instead of letting more powerful thinkers do so for us.
Although it seems obvious to "be yourself" in today's society (as
told by school teachers, parents, and most authority when young), can true
individualism be obtained? If so, how much can this truly benefit out society
and influence innovation?
Personally, I coincide
with Kant on his thoughts. I believe individualism is a desirable quality to
seek. I suppose separating myself from trends and crowds may have influenced
this, but I do like to think that uniqueness brings positive qualities to
society and is the root of innovation. Despite this, can a person who is seen
as distant and inflexible be trusted enough to innovate? Although most can
claim they would never judge others on such points as appearance, we, as
humans, judge others. If we deem another as different, we are far less likely
to trust them, let alone let them advance exponentially in society.
Touching on the topic of
detrimentally following a strong thinker, I believe both sides can be seen. As
mentioned in the previous post, blindly following behind strong can lead to
disaster, such as how I mentioned Hitler's rise to power during the Second
World War. In contrast to this, knowledgeable followers assisting a strong, but
unable, thinker can result in wondrous events, such as the 1960's Stonewall
riots or notable war victories, like the battle of Gettysburg during the civil
war. Both these riots and this battle were led by strong thinkers, but in no
way resulted in disaster or genocide, but rather American victory and the
furthered acceptance and mainstreaming of gay pride, displaying the ability for
"groupthink" to be beneficial.
Concerning conformity,
fitting in and resembling a crowd is not always a terrible thing. As mentioned
previously, those seen as separate and alienated will be seen as social pariahs
(even more so in today's xenophobic society of rampant Internet access and
"safe zones"). Casually speaking, how often do you trust the man no
one will even speak to? How often can you say you believe the “outcast” has
important and worthwhile conversation, nay, worth, in our society? Not often, I
can assume. Although this anecdotal example is rather simple when compared to
the broad aspect of conformity, the point stands: Conformity does not always
result in a dead society.
Although I do want
Kant's beliefs to become more mainstreamed, I don't particularly think they
will. Aforementioned "safe zones" foster xenophobia for those
different from us and the desire for others to think for us seems to have no
foreseeable end. Sadly, Kant would more than likely be rather dissatisfied with
how we have persisted as a people. Even knowing uniqueness is inherently
simple, we, as a species, still struggle with it and simply follow. My opinion
on Kant’s beliefs is simple: he was a wishful thinker, and perhaps in his time
period his thoughts were plausible, but society as passed being able to follow
through on his beliefs. Although groupthink and conformity can occasionally
benefit us, as a whole, it will destroy us.
1D post: http://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2016/04/groupthink.html
1D post: http://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2016/04/groupthink.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.