Well thats probably true 
But this being a philosophy forum we do need the arguments to be set out.
At the heart of this is the fact that we can’t make people care about others. A metaphysical argument or laborious syllogism isn’t going to promote community. I would think that you learn this through lived interaction.
But even if we wanted to live apart from one another, we could not escape our interdependence. We share air, water and soil, and depend on the same towns, cities and institutions. Our wellbeing and safety depends on the communities we belong to. We share a common fate. Humans are social creatures, and we generally do better in groups when we can share resources, knowledge, care and responsibility with others. None of us is entirely self-sufficient; much of what makes a good life possible is created between people rather than by individuals alone. To promote community is to recognize that our wellbeing is largely bound up with the wellbeing of others.
That would be my reasoning. But I grant you, there is nothing to prevent someone from declaring “fuck others” and attempting to go it alone. I offer this as a narrative, not as an obligation. There is no metaphysical imperative that compels us to care about other people, to resist misanthropy, or to seek connection. The case for community doesn’t rest on some ultimate moral law, but on how we see ourselves as social creatures and the kind of life we want to build together. But if someone wants to shun this notion that’s on them.
2 Likes
A network of actors as nodes and relations as edges.
Do you really picture misanthropy or egotism in my beliefs?
That’s a common assumption, and I hear it a lot, but I’m afraid the logic doesn’t check out. I believe that individuals hold more value than abstract ideas. That includes every flesh-and-blood human being, universally. I can’t think of a bigger community. I’m genuinely curious how one can move from this basic premise, or the refusal to reify abstract ideas (a known fallacy), to anti-social behavior and misanthropy?
Reifying the idea of “community” and speaking in lovely metaphors about human connections and sharing does not prove that one cares for others, just as questioning the validity and ontology of terms such as “community” does not prove that one is anti-social or wants to be a hermit. All of that can only be discovered by observing an individual’s actions, by knowing him.
If I were to make a tally of the fellow community members who have responded negatively to my post, observing what little I can about their actions, not a single instance of “caring for others” has appeared yet. It’s been quite the opposite—basic bigotry.
Thankfully, some have engaged the questions quite well and kindly.
Couldn’t say. I don’t know enough about you. But those people who actively oppose community or argue it doesn’t exist or is impossible to define, I do believe have antisocial traits.
Couldn’t agree more.
True.
People who say they don’t believe in community and argue against the idea often subscribe to a pathological individualism, like, say, Thatcher. I would say by definition that this has antisocial dimensions. But I am not accusing you of that since I don’t know your broader views.
Nice. Yes community probably should include this. What does this mean from your perspective since as you put it such expressions can be rhetorical and empty?
1 Like