Individual vs. Collective - Does this make sense?

I personally think not:

The collective is nothing but a conglomeration of individuals and, funny enough, individuals are product of a collective both materially and abstractly.

Materially - First of all, we all are product of sexual intercourse, or at least conception, which requires a certain interaction either direct or indirect between two human beings which themselves are product of such interactions. Materially, in the strictest of senses, we're product of a collective, of a community. Then, what about our preservation? Our needs are sufficed by our mother, or in its defect a mentor since our birth - without protection and interaction with humans we could hardly survive but impossibly develop properly as human beings.

Since we are social beings and organize in communities, eventually, our material needs end up being sufficed by others within the community and we end up sufficing said needs to others. We're interdependant.

Abstractly - Our language, our knowledges, our culture all of them are product of the interaction and the development of said interaction between human beings with other human beings and ourselves and of those human beings with their environment which have shared and their personal experiences and perspectives on this interaction with the environment with others creating thus a collective identity with a cyclic evolution.

Knowledge is product of stored information in regards to a certain interaction, interaction of an individual with knowledge occurs and it may evolve into the creation of yet more knowledge. This knowledge is created, stored and developed by the collective, hence by the individuals within it and so by the individual as product of an interaction with the collective and the environment.

Based on such premises, for example, an individual inventor (whose identity is to a great extent created by the interaction with the collective) will invent something based on knowledges and material conditions procured to him by the environment and the community making the creation of his invention indirectly a product of the community. Said invention will require most often than not the indirect material intervention of the collective - from the food received by the inventor to the materials he may need for his invention. If the invention may suffice a collective need, then it will be produced by the collective with some inventions requiring, for their concretion, the direct intervention of the collective.

According to this, is it possible to say that the individual is more important than the collective or vicerversa? Is it reasonable to even say that they're mutually exclusive? (the answer for the previous question should be completely obvious) Can really one exist and develop to its full potential without the other within a human context? To what extent is the individuality of a person determined by factors intrinsic merely to the individual and how?

Quote :

According to this, is it possible to say that the individual is more important than the collective or vicerversa? Is it reasonable to even say that they're mutually exclusive?

Id say for a Collective to be sufficient it must reach the potential of every members individuality. A collective is only as strong as its weakest member, which is why all members must work together to reach the maximum potential of them selves, there for making the collective more "powerful".

Quote :

Can really one exist and develop to its full potential without the other within a human context?

Well, Im guessing this is only about a Human collective, and assuming its only about Humans, no one can not fully develop with out the influence of others, thats how human ingenuity works (Im not sure if I worded this correctly, so please correct me if its not).

Quote :

To what extent is the individuality of a person determined by factors intrinsic merely to the individual and how?

When it comes down to it, everyones individuality takes parts from others, as Ive mentioned above that is just how Humans develop.

Liche wrote:

Id say for a Collective to be sufficient it must reach the potential of every members individuality. A collective is only as strong as its weakest member, which is why all members must work together to reach the maximum potential of them selves, there for making the collective more "powerful".

Well I don't think that in matter of strength a community works like a chain.

But well you just seem to be agreeing with what I say.

Liche wrote:

thats how human ingenuity works (Im not sure if I worded this correctly, so please correct me if its not).

Ingeniuty? Why ingenuity?

Id say mostly are creativeness and ability to invent.

Liche wrote:

Id say mostly are creativeness and ability to invent.

Huh?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

Id say mostly are creativeness and ability to invent.

Huh?

This will explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt94Bzr_kfc

How is that related to this discussion?

It explains what I mean by ingenuity.

Liche wrote:

It explains what I mean by ingenuity.

Ok. English is definitely a stupid language... "ingenuity - inventive cleverness or skill", ingenious is its adjective, instead of "ingenuous". Ingeniousness is synonim to ingenuity...

"ingenuity" doesn't come from latin "ingenuitas" which means "lack of malice"... why the hell is english so stupid? Why?!

Ah...

Well end Off-topic.


Ok, so what was your point with ingeniousness, Liche?