RT: https://www.amerika.org/?p=63892
I view it this way: you either have goals beyond yourself or not.
Individualists think only of themselves.
Others have goals, some good and some bad.
@amerika @sj_zero Not quite... both individualists and egoists can have goals beyond themselves, if and only if, those goals end up in feelings of pleasure, achievement etc. for the individual.
The main thing for the individual, is that it is my happiness that counts first and foremost, and if having goals beyond myself, increases my happiness, then that's all fine for the individualist.
"Not quite... both individualists and egoists can have goals beyond themselves, if and only if, those goals end up in feelings of pleasure, achievement etc. for the individual."
Suggests they are the same.
There is no altruism; we all act to do what pleases us.
But doing it for "feelings" is individualism, narcissism, solipsism, etc.
It is not a healthy psychology; in fact, it is inverted
This is an underdetermined scientific hypothesis that is sadly beyond science to prove. Finding the "ultimate" parameter ,individualism or altruism, is not possible, since it seeks to explain all behaviour. We can of course infer, and speculate, but empirical proof is difficult.
When it comes to doing it for "feelings" I disagree, and I argue that it is in fact the most healthy way to look at things. We have feelings of happiness, and
@amerika @sj_zero unhappiness, and that is just a fact of nature.
Disregarding feeling, in favour of an ideology, religion, ism, and doing what the leader says, despite that it making you unhappy, is extremely unhealthy, and if pursued long enough, will cause severe mental illness, depression, and might ultimately cost you your life.
Not to speak of wasted opportunities.
So a core _strength_ of individualism, is that it focuses on your feelings, and teaches us to
