About the concept of the masses and the striving for individuality.
I would like to discuss with the members of the forum a few delicate questions:Is there generally a normal definition of the "masses" that are constantly talked about?
Why is it precisely the pursuit of individuality that makes people look alike like two drops of water?
Why does no one openly classify himself as a "crowd", but at the same time strive to rank himself as a member of another group, to become a part of another crowd? Crowds, ostensibly opposing an abstract "gray mass", but in reality a collection of the same people with the same patterns in their heads? In the opposite of which is put the same far-fetched "man of the crowd", a straw stuffed animal with stereotypical qualities, which no one has ever seen, including "nitakoykakfse" ?
Why does the pursuit of individuality make a person a stupid cattle squared?
In what areas can society be divided into "mass" and "elite" and is there any absolute criterion?
great topic on the gaming forum. Wait for a thousand witchers 3 to write off that you need to maintain neutrality and fuck some chick on a unicorn
Gauguin
The first possible secret is that a person has chosen the simplest way to reveal his "individuality" - not to change himself, but to change the set of his attributes, according to which a person is distinguished from the general mass of people and is ranked as a subculture: fancy clothes, multi-colored hair, body painting under Khokhloma and the like.
The second possible secret is that a person wants to be "nitakimkakfse", but on the condition that the crowd does not point a finger at the lonely poor fellow, does not drive him or mock him. Such a person wants to feel a sense of the security of his interests and his "dissimilarity", because he needs a blood from his nose like-minded people, the same as he is "netakiekakfse".
Wing42
about subcultures, the author of the topic wrote, you, as a deputy, pissed off a lot of ode, there is little useful from this
A person himself lives according to the laws of "society" since childhood, they drum into us what is not impossible and what is possible, supposedly they bring up the standard of stubble and morality, but with age people violate them and explaining this, they say, we are not like that, but life is like that, or I just wanted on the one hand, the individuality of a person in this is determined by everyone who does what he wants, but relying on common sense and not on emotions, but the most important thing is his principles are not those that society imposed on him, but those with whom he was born, so to speak, but what a trick no matter if you are individual if you die, then the world will not lose anything, just as if all people die and at least 2-4 people remain, then there is a chance that humanity will be reborn again,in general, everyone adheres to the law of society and on the one hand, we are all just gears in this huge mechanism, but even one gear is capable of changing us or launching the entire mechanism in a new way!
zambian, stereotypes, false history and other things that give a wrong idea of ​​reality and create the illusion that everything is normal, this all shit was so strongly entrenched and created in the minds of previous generations that now not only few people can do it, only a few units , those who invented and thinks out how to manage the "society", the masses, they thought everything out very well and in order to break these stereotypes it is really necessary that something large-scale happens, or clear the ground so that 10% of children and 2 "% of smart adults are not subject to this shit , and who are going to create a social society and not again a monarchy, etc.
As for me 2 there are two types of pozones. some are the legislators of something. others follow and imitate.
but in fact, the entire development of a person in a society, it is built on the imitation of something and the use of already existing developments by itself. therefore, the boundaries of definition are vague.
just as not everything that was achieved and invented by someone remains in history. therefore, not everything that is individual is successful and effective. as in the evolution of the type.
then there is the question of culture itself. there is a mass and elite culture. therefore, I think a lot of essays and term papers have been written.
Wing42
this is about you, you seem to say something, but you seem to be shitting in the corner
Gauguin wrote: Why is it the pursuit of individuality that makes people look alike like two drops of water?
What makes you think that this is so?
Gauguin wrote:
Why does the pursuit of individuality make a person a dumb cattle squared?
Error. A dull cattle in the square is one who considers himself superior in relation to others.
Gauguin wrote:
Why does the pursuit of individuality make a person a dumb cattle squared?
Salvador Dali, Ernst Unknown ... Picasso?
stalker7162534 wrote:
Error. A dull cattle in the square is the one who considers himself superior in relation to others.
Barack Obama, who considers Americans a special nation, a beacon of democracy, or, according to Hitler's terminology, a superior race?
Spoiler: Maybe you should beware and not take on the burden of responsibility for dividing people into rednecks (rednecks squared) and not cattle?
Wing42 wrote: a
person wants to be "nitakimkakfse", but on the condition that the crowd does not point a finger at the lonely poor fellow, do not drive him and mock him. Such a person wants to feel a sense of the security of his interests and his "dissimilarity", because he needs a blood from his nose like-minded people, the same as he is "netakiekakfse".
Like Conchita Wurst ... ;-)
striving for individuality makes people alike like two peas in a pod? Because the ways to show that individuality come from outside, from the crowd leaders. The safest for puppeteers are shown brighter, the least safe are ridiculed and prohibited. From one crowd, two or three are created, but they are still crowds. There are no individuals in the crowd, the crowd is a single organism, primitive, obeying instincts and rules thrown into this crowd. It is clear that the rules of behavior in a particular crowd were also not born in it :)
Therefore, there is nothing difficult in seeing a person from the crowd. Grab anyone in any crowd, there he is. It doesn't matter who he is, in the crowd he is forced to obey its rules. Now, if you pull him out of the crowd, you can talk about individuality.
The instinct of self-preservation pushes into the crowd, because the crowds attack lonely, to the best of their courage. From the hiss behind the back to the massacres.
Also, interestingly, most of the ways to show individuality are based on consumer culture. It is extremely difficult to knock the creators into a crowd, they are all different, an approach is needed to each one, it is difficult and expensive to manage them. With consumers, everything is much simpler, adjusting public opinion and choosing from two, rarely three options, which in fact is not a choice. It doesn't matter that you bought a Tyblophone, Samsung or a Japanese clamshell, there are still fetishists, you bought, spent time and money. And buy more and more.
Ababkov Denis wrote:
supposedly they bring up the norms of maral and morality
By the way - the easiest way to show your "individuality". Not creativity, not painstaking work, but ... violate moral norms. It's as simple as that. The stupid "thread" cattle is still dominated by the myth that violation of moral norms is a good way to prove your exclusivity. And also any elitism in inaction is popular with cattle. DO NOT have children, DO NOT eat meat, DO NOT read hudlit, etc. ... Do something - no. But not to do it - you are always
welcome ... grafonoman wrote:
zambian, stereotypes, false history and other things that give a wrong idea of ​​reality and create the illusion that everything is fine, this shit was so strongly entrenched and created in the minds of previous generations
So what we have here - "the abscity imposes", everything is clear. Any values ​​are imposed in one way or another, imagine ... And your liberalism, to which the "clean and free" Internet opened your eyes. But you got to the bottom of the truth, yeah ...
stalker7162534 wrote: The
one who considers himself superior in relation to others becomes a stupid cattle in the square.
So this is the essence of pure striving for individuality - to rise above the crowd, this is the whole point. The only way to stand out is not to strive to stand out, not to make the abstract "thread-like" an end in itself. And focus your efforts on achieving specific goals.
requiemmm wrote:
There are no individuals in the crowd, the crowd is a single organism, primitive,
You have not answered the question - what is the crowd, is it bad and is there an absolute criterion for dividing into "elite" and "crowd"? Your postulates, of course, elevate you above this very "crowd" (although ... in fact, not), like the postulates of the rest, "so different" people in this topic, yes ... But they do not give any specific definitions.