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?
Gauguin wrote:
Why is it the pursuit of individuality that makes people look like two peas in a pod?
Did you come up with this yourself, or did someone tell you?
Can you confuse with a similar phenomenon - to stand out, a manic desire for the affect of inadequacy?
You have not answered the question - what is a crowd, is it bad and is there an absolute criterion for dividing into "elite" and "crowd"? For the definition to Dahl. Although ... I'll give you a definition. A crowd is a group of people of such a size that the individual has no influence on the group's actions. Consequently, the interests of the individual are not taken into account by the group, his development stops, and existence loses its meaning. Good or bad, these are purely relative concepts, from the point of view of your slave owner, a herd of imbeciles who resignedly burn their lives in working for him, this is undoubtedly good.
the essence of a pure striving for individuality is to rise above the crowd. Get out of it. Just go out, do not lead, do not overtake - go out, so that the herd of rams does not interfere with their business.
And your absolute criterion is the result. Just leave behind something other than a mountain of garbage and offspring. Even though there is a castle made of beer bottles for the whole summer cottage, it makes no difference, but show that you are not an animal.
requiemmm wrote:
A crowd is a group of people of such a size that the individual has no influence on the actions of the group.
Obviously, as in the case of Swan, Cancer and Pike. Even talented people (talented in different areas) in the crowd are something goofy and disorganized. But individually?
requiemmm wrote:
Consequently, the interests of the individual are not taken into account by the group, his development stops, and existence loses its meaning.
Give examples. Visual
requiemmm wrote:
Get out of it.
Okay, then why didn't you manage to do it? And what do you think "get out" of the crowd? Banal mamkin nankanfarmezm is the lot of the same cattle.
requiemmm wrote:
Even though there is a beer bottle castle for the whole summer cottage, it doesn't matter, but show that you are not an animal.
Anyone can leave this behind.
requiemmm wrote:
offspring
You probably think that raising good offspring is very easy, yes ...
I do not consider myself a crowd just because I have little contact with this crowd.
Gauguin
It is extremely tedious to write obvious things to a clown who has chosen the Jewish type of trolling as the main type of behavior. And boring. Go to your mother, ask why 2 + 2 = 4 and demand proof.
The thought process is based on comparing the subjective and the objective. Thus, the separation of one's own self from the external world is a necessary process for self-identification and self-awareness - personality, organism, rational being.
Why no one openly identifies himself as a "crowd"
Because, depending on the context, this word is demeaning.
But people consider themselves to be a society, a very small part opposes themselves to society due to ideological contradictions, others because of hatred, these are sociopaths and other patients.
Where did the concepts of "gray mass" and "crowd" come from? People, being naive idiots, have the presumption that they are right. The human brain, giving birth to a thought, considers the thought to be correct, giving birth to an opinion, the brain considers this opinion to be true. And now I am convinced that I am right, otherwise I would not write at all. Thus, the presumption of eternal righteousness contributes to the division of people into the elite (those whose views coincide with the views of the bearer of truth) and the "gray mass" (the views of these people are not correct, stupid, people themselves are narrow-minded and do not represent anything of themselves, otherwise they would have thought correct) Although the "gray mass" is too abstract a concept, it can be used in relation to the numerical majority, in opposition to the majority, or to a certain group of people (described above).
Who really is the fool? A fool is an individual, since in the absence of a qualitative criterion for determining truth, quantitative is decisive. The correctness of the "gray mass" is supported by the number, the individual has nothing but an inner conviction, with a significant probability of the false belief.
Is it important to be right and not be a fool?
It is important for specific listeners, but not for anthological issues. Disagree with the majority? It doesn't matter, most of them also have no idea how to live, just guesswork. The guesses of the majority do not free all mortals from the final fate.
Gauguin
If you think that the violation of the rules of the dirty thing is nothing to do, I mean that such people rob, thump, fuck, and so on, with such primitive actions they say that we want to do something and we do it against the system, we are not a "stupid herd" this is exactly the choice of cattle, although they could, as you wrote, go into creativity and so on, in general, do a really useful business, and not degrade and for 40 years tell everyone about their "achievements"
Alexator
Through the TV.
Spoiler 
Shaw you did with Borey Moseev ... ???
He killed and ate.
Cheburator Founder
What's through the TV?
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos
Thinking is a mental process of modeling the laws of the surrounding world on the basis of axiomatic provisions [1]. However, there are many other definitions in psychology.
For example: the highest stage of information processing by a person, the process of establishing connections between objects or phenomena of the surrounding world; or - the process of reflecting the essential properties of objects, as well as the connections between them, which leads to the emergence of ideas about objective reality. The controversy over the definition continues to this day.
and I stole it from the wiki.
Alexator
Definition reveals my thesis. There is a person, a person has information about the world and phenomena in it, then the person receives information about the phenomenon from outside. This information can correspond to the existing one, or differ (in essence and volume), then thinking is switched on: the information is received, remembered, embedded in the ontological paradigm, linked with information of a similar kind. Either the information is not accepted, it is considered false, or dangerous for the existing representation system. It can be remembered and analyzed later, or even beaten, due to its delusional nature.
requiemmm As
I understand it, you did not manage to "get out of the crowd", tk. I see that you pass off the vague and taut attitudes of your blinkered consciousness as "obvious things." Let in the direction of mother's non-conformism, but nevertheless ... Well, you are not the only one like that, my dear, that's the point. And this is especially noticeable when you, apparently feeling the flimsy of your foundation, resort to rather primitive cattle-tricks in the style of "even too lazy to explain", "yes, it's like 2x2 = 4", etc. Yes, maybe your words really are like 2x2 = 4, but obviously not in decimal notation.
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos
Thinking can be divided into reason and reason - synthetic and analytical apparatus.
Ababkov Denis wrote:
No, I have divided these types of trash personality. Either not do something, or shock.
Gauguin - stupid redneck squared?
If you consider his post as a desire for individuality, then yes.
Spoiler
Gauguin wrote:
Why does the pursuit of individuality make a person a dumb cattle squared?
But if you perceive his scribble as the sound of a crowd chomping together, then still not?
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.
Well, try to kill a person or get a vein, since it's so easy. In addition, a violation of moral norms may be due not to a desire to declare one's individuality, but to doubt the truth of these norms. He who does not doubt does not think.
I understand the indignation at the individualities that change the norms of the majority to the norms of the subculture, which enslaves them even more, in the end, these individuals are a collective image of a representative of the subculture.
Another thing is people whose oneness is recognized when meeting and communicating, while the image can be quite ordinary, with the exception of small details (very important for a knowledgeable person)
Personally, I am convinced of my exclusivity, this conviction made me leave a comfortable place of work, which arranged whatever my age and ability, and engage in much more complex and responsible activities, but at the same time more important and meaningful.
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos wrote:
but doubt about the truth of these norms. He who does not doubt does not think.
Not in the case of morality. Whoever doubts morality is a priori cattle.
Gauguin wrote:
Not in the case of morality. Whoever doubts morality is a priori cattle.
Well, then it turns out that I am the most razbydlyatsky concentrated cattle, because as soon as I do, I doubt morality. However, what I already knew about does not sadden me much.
Gauguin
Morale has changed over the course of history, in places 360 degrees. Now, in the 21st century, morality is still not homogeneous. In Egypt, it is not considered immoral to cut off the clitoris of girls, on the contrary, it is a guarantee of chastity, asceticism in sexual relations and other virtues.
Morality is never unambiguous: in war there are always heroes on the one hand, and animals on the other. At the same time, both of them can have families that are waiting for them home, they can be kind people by nature, good friends. In war, they kill other people, sometimes torture and cause various suffering, while some are called animals, others - heroes.