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?
Only from Moscow I came, not a subject, but until the fart has cooled down: this is a fucking khachestan, and not frightened, they manage not only to turn to me, but also try to push some flowers, and this touching love in flowers woke up in dozens (maybe hundreds ) our brothers are explosive. In the cafe, at almost every table there is xach. In the teahouse - you can safely throw a fragmentation missile, there are no people there. I tore my jaw with laughter when from behind the Stalinist houses on the Kutuzov highway (these houses have meter-long balconies, while there are no balconies on 1x floors, and people are drying clothes in the yard) the Brooklyn skyscrapers appeared. This is really extremely ridiculous and very funny. In general, it was not in vain that Kutuzov burned this city, everything in it is annoying and nothing is a pity.
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos wrote: our
brothers x explosive
patstal
<<blockquote> grafonoman wrote:
either clear the ground so that 10% of children and 2% of smart adults are not subject to this shit, I
wonder what principle will be used to select the rest?)
Suurnoo
by the presence of the Nobel prize kanesh. I wonder how they will handle the sewers.
Yes, it's not about racism, it's about their arrogant and bastard nature, the
Chinese tourists did not enrage me
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos the
Nazis also started about one specific nation
and generally
opposed the "individuality" of the Germans to the crowd of all mankind
stalker7162534
In this regard, I can admit that almost all nations are individual, there are, of course, frankly meaningless ones, like Kenyans and Tanzanians, between their countries even borders are delineated along the line, due to the lack of historical and geographical reference points. But I do not single out one specifically, to say about the exclusivity of Russians in comparison with the whole world, my language will never turn, except about the exceptional love for vodka and stability.
The division of nations along cultural and historical grounds and the separation of orthodox and marginal cultures is another matter. Some of them, being guests, do not behave beautifully: they explode, sell heroin, bananas, people, and seize spheres of influence. The Russians, too, at first behaved in the same way because of the Soviet savagery, but now it seems not.
the endless misanthropy of the black cosmos
Yes, yes, ah. The Fritzes, too, considered only Jews and Frenchmen senseless and marginal.
This idea is a priori delusional. Such people perceive the world superficially and just want to draw attention to themselves. An individual person is absolutely indifferent to the opinions of others about him.
turokxxx
Your comment is also nonsense a priori.
turokxxx wrote:
Such people ...
What? Such as you?
turokxxx wrote:
.... superficially perceive the world
He, he ... Do you know the criteria for the depth of knowledge of the world?
turokxxx wrote:
.... and just want to get attention.
Your comment has already caught my attention. Is your vanity satisfied?
turokxxx wrote:
An individual person is absolutely indifferent to the opinions of others about him.
Yeah .... For example, Salvador Dali.
Spoiler: Many artists also had a lot of oddities that surprise the common people. The most shocking among the masters of canvas and paints was, of course, Salvador Dali.
His appearance alone caused a shock - strange clothes, mustache sticking out in different directions. And the constant pranks and ridicule of others are still passed from mouth to mouth.
Dali believed that people should be shocked not only by his work, but also by all his actions and lifestyle. So, one day he appeared at a lecture in one of the American cities in a suit for diving and a diving helmet ...
And such examples can be given endlessly.
Vanya Rygalov
Aggressive.
Vanya Rygalov wrote: What, like you?
Maybe. However, I did not set the goal of asserting myself and being different from the rest.
Vanya Rygalov wrote:
Heh, heh ... Do you know the criteria for the depth of knowledge of the world?
Of course not, but here you don't need to know the "criteria for knowing the world." Superficially - I meant, having no explanation for my actions and seeing in them only some kind of "coolness",
Vanya Rygalov wrote:
Is your vanity satisfied?
And where did you get the idea that I want to attract attention to myself? Just expressing an opinion - is it forbidden?
Vanya Rygalov wrote:
Yeah .... For example, Salvador Dali.
I'm talking about psychological development, not a bright image.
I noticed such a feature that when people start thinking about such a question, they become even more a part of the "mass" that they avoid. live yourself a calm life, do what you like. The main thing is to be yourself.
The question of individuality is actually a fictional problem. ALL people strive to gather in small groups according to interests, type of character, and on any basis. That there is a loss of individuality and dissolution in the mass. Anything that makes any of us feel comfortable is a factor of attraction to similar people. And the individual is loneliness, this is a difference that manifests itself after you have become part of the group. At some point, you realize that the accepted norms or standards are not wrong, ineffective, etc., etc.
You think with YOUR head and you find a more effective solution. And at this moment you decide to use more eff. the decision is DEFINITIVE to the actions of the crowd / group, contrary to the principle "-I do this because everyone does it". This is your personal way of going the same way. In music this is called improvisation or, if you like, a remix. Do you feel unhappy about not doing remixes?
This is what individuality is. It's like minicreativity, like mininnovation. Individuality is always manifested from the inside out and it is always creative. There is nothing to be proud of and nothing to be upset about. It's just a personal pursuit of excellence.
And when someone inserts earrings into nipples, navels, bearings in ears and tattoos for half a face, etc. it is the Outside-Inside path. This is an attempt to make oneself "not like everyone else" to fill the inner emptiness, to feel special without doing anything.
Valmar_ wrote:
And an individual is loneliness
INDIVIDUALITY
(from Latin individuum - an inseparable whole). Distinctive features of an individual creature that distinguish it from other individuals of its kind.
Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language.- Chudinov A.N., 1910.
turokxxx
Aggressive?
SpoilerI beg you ... Than your statement that this idea is nonsense a priori is less aggressive than my statement that your comment is also nonsense a priori? Heh, heh ... or do you naively think that your lance-corporal style as a moderator gives you any advantage in evaluating other comments? Your word is against mine and nothing more.
So ...
SpoilerWhose cow would moan ....
And by the way
turokxxx wrote:
... I did not set a goal to assert myself and be different from the rest.
Oh, is it? Moderator and .... like everyone else. Heh, heh ... You yourself believe in it ... a priori?
turokxxx wrote:
And where did you get the idea that I want to attract attention to myself?
Since the entire Internet and all Internet communication, with all its forums, blogs, Facebook, Instagram and other crap is one big vanity fair. And we are the most active participants at this fair. We all crave attention (consciously or unconsciously - another question), if only because we communicate, we try to draw attention to ourselves, to our thoughts, our judgments, ... our epaulets.
turokxxx wrote:
I'm talking about psychological development, not a bright image.
That, having a bright image, Salvador Dali was not psychologically developed and from this he was a less individual person?
What I like about modern Internet intellectuals is the ease with which they justify their own wrong, by the fact that they had something completely different in mind and misunderstood them.
Okay, let's say your setup worked and I really misunderstood you. Then we will continue in the light of the newly revealed circumstances.
You will hardly doubt the high psychological development and bright personality of such a person as Donald Trump? That, he too -
turokxxx wrote:
... absolutely indifferent to the opinions of others about him.
And as you can imagine, he is far from alone in the line of psychological developed individual personalities.
And the last - you are absolutely not individual in your donkey stubbornness (and this is not an insult, but only an indicator of the degree of stubbornness) not to admit your mistakes. It happens sometimes, nothing is perfect in this world. Everyone is wrong ...