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?
By the way, they gave excellent examples, another characteristic feature of cattle individuality - "I don't care what others think of me." Yes, such a person really does not care. But it is advisable to declare this in some public place. And the more people know about it, the better.
Valmar_ wrote:
she is always creative.
Just about. Taking into account the fact that creativity for such people is an end in itself, they, as a rule, do not even think about "not such a thing".
Vanya Rygalov
Okay, I was wrong. But showing off my status is ridiculous in my case. A moderator is not a privilege, but a duty, a responsibility, which means that it is much easier for users to assert themselves, especially considering that not everyone follows the rules in the way that a moderator is obliged to do it (I will say more - you need to be ready for hatred from violating users). I took this post for the pleasure of working on the forum and am not looking for attention. Perhaps I spoke sharply about the author's idea, in this you are also right.
The author, who does not like nonconformists so much, wants to discuss social and psychological problems with nonconformists, so that the same nonconformists could assert themselves in their "nona". Why do you need this Gauguin? Want to have some fun?) For your information, I only read your title message, and I don't know how the discourse went there)
Garrus-1994
Garrus-1994 wrote:
The author, so disliked by nonconformists
Not quite so. I do not love nonconformists, but nankanfar retaliators, these are different things. And I kind of already drew the line.
Nankanfar retributions are people who make individuality an end in itself, those who build it on consumption, verbiage or idleness.
Real nonconformists do not even think about the fact that they are nonconformists, because their goal is not individuality, but something abstract, such as creative activity. This is what makes them stand out.