Talk:Individualism/Archive 1

Why doesn't this article contain a criticism section?
The article on collectivism contains a section specifically delineated for criticism of it, so why doesn't this one? It would be in the interests of balance to include one herein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.165.191 (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Only Individuals are agents?
"Society does not have an existence above or beyond these individuals, and thus cannot be properly said to carry out actions, since actions require intentionality, intentionality requires an agent, and society as a whole cannot be properly said to possess agency; only individuals can be agents".

Interesting. Corporations are legal agents - "personalities in law". So do individualists also challenge the right of corporations to exist? If so, they are mounting an attack on capitalism itself, but capitalism is based on individualism... so do we have some kind of ouroboros, a self consuming serpent here?

I personally feel inclined to question the neutrality of this whole item. It is symptomatic that the "Criticism" paragraph has been excised.Doc Richard (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Social animals?
Apparently methodological individualism holds society to be merely a collection of individuals "despite the fact that human beings are scientifically classified as social animals." I am unsure to what extent there is a scientifically credible classification of which animals are "social" and which not, and even if there is, I am absolutely unconvinced of its relevance to any kind of social philosophy. I have removed this sentence pending review. - Saulglasman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saulglasman (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope that there is a scientifically credible classification here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_animal.

If social philosophy has is in some sense to be isolated from the findings of social and ethological science, then clearly there is a problem at the social philosophy end of things, and it is incumbent on Saulglasman to explain convincingly first, why such a rift has to exist, and second, what the consequences are for human knowledge itself for lines of exclusion to be drawn between science and philosophy. Doc Richard (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)]] (Doc Richard (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)|talk]]) 19:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Blurb
This article stresses the independent, irresponsible and self-sufficient individual. Of course, that's what most people think of when they hear the term 'individualism.' But perhaps something more could be said about views seeing the individual welfare as the main goal, and collective action as the best means to get there. For example, one could argue the individual's self-realization is enabled by collective actions like the providing of education and health care. This is not the same as collectivism, as the individual remains the main focus.Djadek 11:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Individualism and Egoism
Somebody please add information about this: What is the difference between individualism and egoism?

Juhtolv


 * To me, the word "egoism" has connotations of Marxist jargon. I don't think I've ever seen it used in any other context.--Bcrowell 19:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You haven't? What about Ayn Rand? She has an entire book called 'The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism'. It was an integral part of her argument in favour of capitalism.

From A.S.Hornby's "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English" follows that individualism is: "1) social theory that favours the free action and complete liberty of belief of individuals (contrasted with the theory favouring the supremacy of the state). 2) feeling or behaviour of a person who puts his own private interests first; egoism." The article expands only on the first meaning. The second meaning should also be added.192.89.123.41 (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In simple terms:

Individualism is saying(among many other things), every person and their personal ideals are important and should be valued as such.

Egoism is saying(also among other things), "I" am the most important above all else.

So they are not the same, but certainly egoists are sometimes the unfortunate spawn of an individualistic mentality/society. Jonas3333 (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Derived from Solipsism?
Removed: "It may derive from a belief in "solipsism"..."

This is without explanation and seems like a big stretch (at least from my knowledge of the two subjects). It seems to suggest that the Individualist outlook began because of, in short, a serious belief in the epistemological uncertainty of other people being real people. Even with the word "may", I don't believe it belongs in the article, nevermind the first paragraph.

I hope everyone else sees my point! (Theboywonder 14:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

Worship isn't the right word
I really don't like this: (except for other individualists, which are worshipped as "heroes") First the tone of this statement seems to be negative of individualism. Secondly, worship is a really strong word, revere might be better. Third, reverence and submission are not the same thing. --Sycomonkey 22:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reference
I've been thinking of removing The Virtue of Selfishness from the reference section. I don't feel it should be in an article about individualism when it promotes egoism instead. It would seem logical to only use references which directly relate to the subject and not to something else. But before I edit anything I'd like to hear some opinions on the matter. NotSuper 18:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone that might have a problem with this removal? If there are no complaints then I'm going to remove it. I'll wait a few more days just in case, though. NotSuper 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I just removed it. NotSuper 07:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the article is misguiding the reader by saying "Individualism is, however, to be distinguished from egoism." Sure, the words themselves means two different things, but individualists oppose altruism --the ethical doctrine that says a person is morally obligated to serve others. If someone opposes altruism he's an individualist. Also the sentence you added is wrong: "Many individuals seek to free every single person from collective control. However, there are also many individualists that have no such intentions." Of course and individualists opposes "collective control." Collective control is the antithesis of individual control. RJII 16:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Individualists certainly can be altruists if they choose to do so; not all of them are interested in just their own self-interest. The important thing is that it's their CHOICE to help others. Also, opposing altruism does not always make one an individualist. Would you classify a thief or killer as an individualist just because they don't believe in helping others? No, that would be horribly wrong. Furthermore, many individualists don't want to free everyone from collective control--some (but not all) of these people are the ones that promote cultural relativism. An individualist merely believes in the importance of the individual and personal reliability. An egoist wants to promote their own interest. It's a pretty clear distinction, in my view. NotSuper 06:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * An altruist is not someone who simply believes in helping others (if we're talking ethics). He's someone who believes people have a moral obligation to help others, even if it's not in one's self-interest, or in one's detriment, to do so. The guy who coined the word "altruism" was August Comte, in order to label his ethical doctrine. Let me give you a quote from him: "[the] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely." There you have it, plainly stated opposition to "individualism." And, if someone wants people to be under "collective control" they are definitely not individualists. Individualism is all about individual control. Collective control could sacrifice the individual if doing so serves the "greater good" of the collective. RJII 15:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many different interpretations of altruism. You can see that on the article for altruism on Wikipedia. As for the collective control issue, not all individualists care about that as long as THEY aren't under the control. These would be the selfish individualists--though not all selfish individualists feel this way, of course. They would not want people under collective control but would instead be indifferent to them. Like I've said, there are individualists (such as Robert Heinlein) that believed in cultural relativism. In addition, some ofthe heroes of the Romantic age are individualists yet sacrifice themselves to help others or the "greater good."

One definition of altruism is as follows: "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness." It doesn't always have to be an obligation. In many ways the philosophy has changed over the years.
 * That's the colloquial definition of altruism. If you're talking ethics and political philosophy then "altruism" always refers to a moral obligation to help or serve others. RJII 20:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I've said, there are different interpretations of altruism. If you'd like to mention these in the article I'd have no problem with that. I'm referring to altruism as helping others without benefit to oneself. NotSuper 20:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In any case, this section is for discussion of reference material for the article. This particular topic of interest requires its own category on the talk page.

Also, on the history page I notice that you claimed I was trying to say collectivism was compatible with individualism. This was never what I was saying at all. What I'm saying is that an individualist, one that cares only for himself, MAY not care what goes on in another society (one with collective control). NotSuper 19:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "An individualist may be a conscientious "altruist": he is by no means hostile to, or aloof from society" ..what is that supposed to mean?  Not being an altruist doesn't mean you're hostile or aloof from society --this is a false contrast from egoism. RJII 20:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Since I didn't write any of those passages (or modify them) I can't say for sure what the user who put them there was saying. I could give some theories on why they put that in there, but I'm not going to right now. But again, this section is for reference books. We should start a new section on the talk page for discussion on the subject.

In fact, I'll start a section now. NotSuper 23:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Altruism and Individualism
There has been some debate on whether individualism and altruism can go together or not. What does everyone think? Perhaps we can reach a comfortable consensus here. NotSuper 23:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You could say something along the lines of "although individualism is incompatible with the classical definition of altruism (helping others out of moral obligation), it is not incompatible with choosing to help others."
 * An individual can choose to be altruistic of his or her own accord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Individuality redirects to individualism
Sometimes a distinction is made between individuality and individualism as doctrines. Can someone comment on this? Is it worth discussing in the article or making a disambiguation? Eric 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I can not conceive that Idividualism and Altruism can exist in a symbiosis existance. One means Self and the other refers to the helping of others and putting others before self. As such,both terms contradict the other.

[(User:Modify|True_Wayfinder)] 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Equally I cannot conceive that a person can write with both their left and their right hands, in a 'symbiosis' existance. One is on the left, the other is on the right, and as such the terms contradict each other. As of 15th July 2008, I have proven (with my exceptional use of logic) that there is no such thing as being ambidextrous. What next? To convince people the sky is green. --Jaye001 (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Intangible, I invite you to explain yourself
You reverted several of my edits without explanation, even though they are the exact same kinds of edits that you support in the collectivism article. For your convenience, here's a list:


 * 1) My edits to the intro. The previous introduction was horribly POV, talking about such things as the "virtue of self-reliance", and it was entirely unreferenced. I thought you advocated the removal of unreferenced intro text, as you did with the text I added to the collectivism intro.
 * 2) You reverted out of hand several edits I made for NPOV. Your version features the words "encroachment by the state", "transgressions by the majority" and "repugnant", where mine has "obligations imposed by social institutions", "wishes of the majority" and "irrelevant".
 * 3) You restored an unreferenced paragraph I had removed. Granted, most of the article is unreferenced at this point, but most of the article is not the subject of dispute. If someone disputes an unreferenced paragraph, that paragraph has to go (or at least get an "unreferenced" tag).
 * 4) Worst of all, you removed a perfectly legitimate criticism of individualism that was referenced as coming from Alexis de Tocqueville.

-- Nikodemos 00:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I left de Tocqueville in. He was not the first though to use the term "individualism" in the English language though, which I corrected. Intangible 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice you moved him up. I apologize. Right now I'm trying to apply my favourite method of dispute resolution: Make the uncontroversial edits first so that the dispute gets narrowed down as much as possible. -- Nikodemos 00:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From the 1932 Dictionnaire de l'Académie française: individualism is "subordination of the general interest to the interest of the individual." I wonder what it says now... Intangible 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we can add that definition to the intro... but why did you revert my grammar and spelling changes? -- Nikodemos 01:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

quote
From Swart: "Their major target was not so much the political doctrine of natural, inalienable rights of man as the economic doctrine of laissez faire...they did not criticize the XVIIIth-century philosophy for its equalitarian tenets (as was done by the conservative anti-individualists) but for not having coped with the increasing inequality between rich and poor." There are of course different types of egalitarianism... Intangible 01:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, here's the important part: "as was done by the conservative anti-individualists". That makes more sense. Thank you! I didn't realize what the part about egalitarianism was doing there - now I see that the source was trying to contrast the Saint-Simonians with the conservatives. -- Nikodemos 01:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin of term; "autonomy"
I've read in Alain Renaut's Era of the Individual that the historian Marcel Gauchet located the first use of the term in an anonymous letter to a Saint-Simonean newspaper.

Speaking of Renaut's book, he draws a very interesting distinction between individualism and autonomy, and what he sees as the modern conflation of the two ideas. I don't know where to put in a note about this, though.--WadeMcR 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Political versus Methodological
"For some political individualists, who hold a view known as methodological individualism, the word "society" can never refer to anything more than a very large collection of individuals."

There is something wrong here. It seems to me that all pol indivs would be method indivs. But method indiv is an approach to social analysis which doesn't imply pol indiv. You can use method indiv to deduce collective social structures.

- Pepper 150.203.227.130 08:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cooperation for more individual freedom
The article is very faulty, concentrating only on selfishness and egoism. I can explain this best by telling you about left-liberalism and right-liberalism in Europe.

Left-liberals are the poor workers who struggled together to further the freedom of the poor, against the domination of the rich, or the church, or the kings and tsars.

When a rich man owns a whole town, which happened often in the wild west, or in the towns in Europe, he is dominating the life of all the citizens in town.

The citizens have to work for the rich man in his mines and factories, shops and saloons, to get money, pieces of paper, from the rich man, so they could exchange these pieces of paper against food, clothes, living quarters, alcohol, which the rich man owned and distributed.

The left liberals were very close to the labor unions and the socialists, as they struggled for more personal freedom and more independence from the rich, the church or the king.

The rich developed their own version of liberalism, the right to use their property, their money, their power, as they liked. This reactionary movement is called right-liberalism. They wanted the right to be selfish and to be egoists.

As it stands now the article is only referring to this kind of reactionary liberalism, the right of the rich and powerful to keep their power over the poor.

The article should also explain how people can cooperate to achieve more freedom. Both more freedom as individuals and as a group.

This leads us to the distinction between authoritarian socialism (communism), and anti-authoritarian socialism. Authoritarian socialism struggles for the welfare of the poor, but is not aware of the need for individual freedom. Or cannot afford individual freedom.

The first communists in the Russian revolution were very interested in individual freedom, but the attacks from foreign powers forced their leaders into an authoritarian form of communism. On a ship in a storm and under attack from pirates there is not much place for individualism. Everybody has to obey the orders of the captain to maximise the chances of survival.

Anti-authoritarian socialism struggles to achieve more individual freedom for all, and especially, of course, for those who have very little individual freedom, the poor workers. Left-anarchists criticised the authoritarian communism, for this lack of individual freedom.

Reactionary right-anarchists struggled for the freedom of the capitalists to use their money in any way they wanted, and they make a lot of propaganda for anarcho-capitalism, the rights for the rich to have freedom from taxes, political interference from democracy, (politics), and freedom to continue to use and abuse the poor.

A lot of people in USA, even poor people, repeat like parrots what they have been taught, that taxes is theft, that corporations should have freedom like people, that politics is evil, and that businessmen and the rich should make all the important decisions, not politicians.

They forget that they, the people, have power over politicians, if they use this power wisely, but no power over the rich. Decisions taken publicly by elected representatives of the people is better than decisions taken secretly by greedy people who only struggle to maximise their profit.

We can use the power of political and social cooperation to achieve better material circumstances and more individual freedom for the poor.

Personally I grew up in Sweden in the 50ies and 60ies, and enjoyed a lot of personal freedom, which generations of socialists had created during the beginning of the 20th century, building up the welfare systems, free schools, study loans for higher education, extra subventions for the poor, public libraries, unemployment insurance, free public health care, etc..

I was, for example, shocked when I saw a beach in Austria with a high hence around it, and you had to pay to get into that beach. I had never seen anything like that and I was used to the freedom to walk anywhere in the forest or on the beaches. We have the right for anybody to put up a tent and camp anywhere, except close to a house. In many other countries people do not have such rights and freedoms. In my youth I could hitchhike around in Europe and Asia and in most countries we had a lot of individual freedom and the right to free health care and schools, public libraries, the workers unions very cheap festival areas in every town, the people's park, and the people's house where we could dance every saturday night.

The people's house ("Folkets hus" in swedish), is also used for concerts, speeches, documentary movies, etc.. and is usually owned by the worker's unions. (Roger J.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.249.185.210 (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

After writing the text above I found that wikipedia, in english, actually has an article about Folkets hus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkets_hus

and from that article you can follow links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkpark and further on to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allemansrätten describes the freedom to roam freely and camp wherever you like.

I mention these specifically swedish institutions because they give a good idea of how cooperation between the workers created a lot of individual freedom, and Sweden has been a pioneer in these areas compared to most countries in the world. This text I have written may be seen as mainly political, but I think editors of the article on Individualism can learn some important general ideas on individualism and individual freedom from it.

An external link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allemansrätten leads us to http://www.la-articles.org.uk/LA-1.pdf That text says "Ramblers should not expect their leisure activity to be free." And that captures the essence of the issue, the rich people, the land owners, want to be able to make a profit on everything. If leisure activity is free it gives too much individual freedom to the poor and makes it impossible to make a profit from their leisure activity.

If the rich people could charge us for breathing the air they surely would, just like they recently managed to charge for rain water in some African countries. The freedom of the capital tries to reduce the individual freedom of the people, so they can sell individual freedom and make a profit from it, which limits the individual freedom and makes it available only to those who can afford individual freedom. It is a neverending struggle between the ruling elite (the rich) and the people which is at the root of this issue of individual freedom and individualism. (Roger J.)


 * Left and Right liberalism? I think you must be confusing liberalism with social democrats and Marxists.


 * Your theory of "class warfare" (your constant references to poor vs rich) is a Marxist concept and is entirely opposite to individualism which belives that only individuals exist and that groups are grammatical fictions.


 * Individualism places great value on self-reliance, on privacy, and on mutual respect. Negatively, it embraces opposition to authority and to all manner of controls over the individual, especially when exercised by the state. As a theory of human nature, individualism holds that the interests of the normal adult are best served by allowing him maximum freedom and responsibility for choosing his objectives and the means for obtaining them. The institutional embodiment of individualism follows from these principles. All individualists believe that government should keep its interference in the lives of individuals at a minimum, confining itself largely to maintaining law and order, preventing individuals from interfering with others, and enforcing agreements (contracts) voluntarily arrived at. Individualism also implies a property system according to which each person or family enjoys the maximum of opportunity to acquire property and to manage and dispose of it as he or they see fit.


 * Individualism is a doctrine holding that the interests of the individual should take precedence over the interests of the state or social group.


 * Sweden has capitalist economy just like the rest of Europe (only Western Europe during the cold war) and Asia, although with state intervention, which makes it a mixed economy not a socialism. Sweden also has a lower population density than Austria so there is a greater chance to find a private beach (especially around a lake) and considering that Austria is landlocked country with fewer beaches anyway.


 * You can cooperate all you want in capitalist system, but you are not beign guaranteed no success and have to accept competition from others.


 * Stratofortress 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Individualism is for the egotistical
Individualism feeds egoism. Individualism is also what is destroying the world. When individuals consider themselves above others, we see competition. War is a competition between two or more world powers. Neither one taking into consideration the pain and suffering they cause everyone else. In all competition someone must lose, and no one wants to lose because of their ego.

Individualism is evil, and goes against the idea that all people are created equal.

Individualism should not be seen as a desireable virtue. Real desireable virtues should be those that improve humanity and overall life on earth.

How can individualism be better than communalism?(not to be confused with communism) Individualism does not contribute to a whole. It seperates people. In a buisiness that is successfull there has to be a cooperation between the individuals to accomplish a desired outcome. This cannot be done with individualistic ideas. In a buisiness full of individualists there is arguing, fighting, and at the most extreme "going postal". We see how this affects people every day. I live in this buisiness life, and the company I do contract work for has been bought and sold over six times in ten years.

The problem is that most people are individualists, seeking to make their lives more comfortable regardless of the cost. How, then, does that coincide with something such as world peace. We can only acheive something like world peace when everyone is happy, and individualists are not concerned with anyone else.

Put two hungry individualists in a room with only one hamburger and I gaurantee that someone will get hurt.


 * That view only makes sense when you're talking about some kind of pack animal, like a lion, which doesn't have the power of reason. Not human beings, who do.


 * As far as your horror scenario goes, what you describe isn't individualism. It's what I call "social contrarianism", which is completely different.  People whose minds are still developing (i.e. children) usually act this way because they can't rationally see the benefits of doing otherwise.  But a fully functioning adult in society should know the difference.  Someone who cooperates (like in a business setting), because he understands the  personal gain he can get from doing so, is being individualistic.  Someone who cooperates because he thinks that groupwork is a virtue in and of itself is not individualistic.


 * You should also realize that all great modern innovations that have improved the world (planes, trains, cars, radios, televisions, computers, nanotech, medicines etc.) were invented by people who put themselves first. These things wouldn't exist if they gave those personal visions up and went into community service.  In any case the benefits everyone can get from the work of some government think-tank will never outdo the benefits we already get from the products of individuals.


 * No war (at least in modern history) was started with individualistic goals in mind. The great Empires of history spread because of their leaders' interest in their collective glory.  Hitler invaded Europe for the glory of the race.  The Soviets reached out to other countries to perpetuate their ideology.  War is never something individualists would ask for unless not going to war would seriously threaten their freedom (like in World War II).


 * "World Happiness": Those suffering impoverished places of the world aren't "happy" because they live in political climates that prevent them from pursuing their own goals. Africa shares the plate with socialists, racialists, kings, chiefs, military dictators and tribe-warfare.  They would be better off if they stepped up and got rid of those regimes and replaced them with governments that protect their freedom, and if Western governments and private individuals stopped keeping them happily in power by subsidizing those countries.  You can't blame individualists for "not giving enough", and you can't force them to give up their personal goals either.  You won't produce world peace and happiness by enslaving the free world.


 * The perpetuation of a society that is based entirely on co-operation necessitates complete disregard for the rights and freedoms of the individual. The borg are a perfect example of this. For other good examples, take a nice long look at the horrific injustices perpatrated by socialist and communist regimes. In order to pursue efficient collectivism, the Chinese government ruthlessly persecuted the Tibetan people for almost 50 years. The most horrific of all crimes against humanity were comitted under the guise of National Socialism (Nazism), the goal of which was a unified and co-operative Germany free from Jewish influence (and other non pureblood arians).


 * Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry.  Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. (A.R.)


 * Put two idealistic collectivists in a room and I guarantee that they will commit a mass genocide.


 * Stratofortress 18:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't do this... but there is nothing wrong with a society based on cooperation. Just because some regimes have enforced slavish obedience to the state in the name of communism doesn't mean we can't do better.  Occasionally we do have to consider the good of the community ahead of our own interests, or society falls apart.  Everybody pursuing their own self-interest is anarchy--and not the good kind.  If we only consider our own interests, we become slaves to our own egos instead of to a state.  Of course totalitarianism is wrong, but the logical outcome of strict individualism is just as bad.  There needs to be a balance between the self and the community.  Either one to the exclusion of the other is a recipe for disaster.--Pariah (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the discussion title: yes, and what's wrong with that. Your definition of society is that of the collectivist or the socialist. Cooperation is only individuals working towards a purpose which each individual believes is in his self intrest. If they do not believe their will be mutual benifit there can be no rational cooperation. See The Virtue of Selfishness70.151.125.19 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099


 * People can cooperate quite rationally for non-selfish reasons; they do it all the time. Like when they raise kids.  Selfishness is not a virtue, it is the absence of virtue.  It may be useful at times, but that doesn't make it virtuous.--Pariah (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Liberalism/Libertarianism?
Why is the idea of individualism considered a liberal idea? In Modern times Liberals support just as many restrictions as conservatives. While conservatives like stuff like the Patriot Act, Real ID, and the drug war, liberals support things like gun control, the REAL ID (also), and censorship. In fact some liberals are more socially restrictive than conservatives. Look at Obama, from what I understand he supports the Patriot Act and the REAL ID. Not to mention Hillary-ish censorship and gun control. Now I'm not saying Individualism should be classified as a Conservative philosophy specifically because of the neocons' ideology. But if one of the 2 (Liberalism and Conservativism) should be listed it should be conservativism seeing as Individualism does not exist in either modern major party so the definition should be looked at from a historical perspective. Based on that lets go back to Calvin Coolidge, a Republican president and by far the closest we've ever had to a Paleo-Conservative president based on his actions. Coolidge supported both social and economic liberty and INDIVIDUALISM. How about the Confederate States of America... while the CSA's legislation didn't reflect the PaleoCon philosophy to a great extent during the war (hey... it WAS a home-fought war...), it was founded on that philosophy. I Think that Conservativism deserves just as much right to but listed as individualism as Liberalism, seeing as Neither are Individualist ideologies... TheHoustonKid, (L-TX)


 * Becuase this is not to do with American warping of the terminology: US liberals are more like socialists. True Liberals are classical liberals, and individualists to the core. Larklight (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

opposing views
There are several examples of opposing viewpoints already given throughout the article, and surely the article doesn't need a section devoted to it. I vote that the section be eliminated as superfluous. Hmoul 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * concurred, took it out.--M a s 09:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. This article has a distinctly POV thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc richard (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I second this. While there may be opposing viewpoints expressed throughout the article, I think placing them in their own section would make it more "streamlined" so to speak; some people might be looking for the critical perspectives and would likely appreciate not having to sift through an entire article. On that note, I also think this article would benefit from some historical context surrounding the emergence of this concept as a culturally significant, but perhaps we can deal with that in a different section.--Elgober (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)elgober

Ayn Rand, moral relativism, and selfishness
The article contains the sentence: "Others still, such as Ayn Rand, argue against 'moral relativism' and claim selfishness to be a virtue." I'm just wondering if anyone can confirm this about Ayn Rand's Objectivism. To my mind that seems paradoxical--isn't selfishness inherently relativistic?--Pariah (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Rand (and Objectivists) hold that value and moral worth are objective; relativists do not agree. An Objectivist holds selfishness to be objectively virtuous, and condemns altruists. Unlike Objectivists, Moral relativists do not make such sweeping judgments, and tend to be moral anti-realists. See the linked articles or feel free to ask me if you're unclear about anything. Regards, скоморохъ  20:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response, Skomorokh. I'm familiar with the articles you linked, but I still have trouble with the Objectivist concept of morality.  I realize that Rand argues that the moral value of selfishness is an objective fact, because man's desire to enhance his own life is universal in her view.


 * But when self-interest is the only thing a person considers, all of their choices are necessarily based on their own subjectivity and nothing else. In other words, there's no moral reference point or anchor beyond the self and one's own desires--making it (in practice at least) indistinguishable from moral relativism.--Pariah (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Objectivist does act only in rational self intrest, but this does not mean that the Objectivist does not consider others. He considers them in relation to the oppurtunity for achievement and benefit that they could provide to him. The Objectivist may enchance the lives of other if the Objectivist in return recives benifit such as material gain or happiness70.151.125.19 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099


 * In other words, other people are means to an end, rather than ends in themselves... I still can't see how that's any different to, if not worse than, moral relativism.--Pariah (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

please move the pic
The word "that" is blocked by the picture on this page. It can make the sentence sound strange if one is unable to realize what word is obscured70.151.125.19 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099

The Essence of Individualism--Synthesis / Original Research
Is it just me, or does the entire new section "The Essence of Individualism" read like original research? Remember that Wikipedia is not the place for long and interesting essays or analysis, it is merely here to present the facts in a concise and meaningful way. I don't mean to offend, since somebody obviously spent a lot of time on it, but it belongs more in a first-year essay project than on an encyclopedia.--Pariah (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

do randists control everything on wikipedia?
this article looks like something ayn rand would say herself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.228.210 (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sections of it do, but that doesn't mean it or Wikipedia is controlled by Randists. The page has problems which need to be worked out.--Pariah (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Randists do not control Wikipedia but there is heaps of evidence pointing to Ruseelian and Schopenhaueronic control. Sioraf (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinion and Bias in "Individualism vs. Conformity"
There is worrying author bias in this section.

Regarding the first two paragraphs of the "Individualism vs. Conformity" section, one sees apparent author bias in violation of Wikipedia's rules on NPOV. The first paragraph states strongly that it is a fallacy to believe that neither individualism nor conformity have inherent meaning or value to be contrasted to one another. Rather, the article proclaims that these are completely "objective" words that should not be debated, or at least not outside of situational context. It goes on to say that they "should carry no connotation." (emphasis on "should" added) It finishes noting that he cannot imagine how any "ideology, person or group" could disagree; "to do so," it says, "would be to spew fanciful sanctimonious delusions." This is completely inappropriate on an article that aspires to be unbiased, and would appear to belittle the entire philosophical debate about the relationship between individual and society. The article notes that conformity can be as benign as "standardized meal consumption times," however it is clear that many individualists would still disagree that even this is an appropriate function of our social mechanisms. Indeed, many would argue that surrendering individuality or personal freedom for group comfort in such an instance would be an excellent, if mild, example of a social abridgment of their freedom. On the other side of the spectrum, others may note that the collective gain is quite significant as compared to the individual loss, and that individuals have a responsibility to go along with the group in such a situation. Regardless of what one's personal belief is, such discussions (though usually on a much grander scale) are a rich source of philosophical thought and are essential for determining belief and policy regarding the state's and society's interaction with the individual - certainly not a debate to be trivialized as "an embarrassment." 98.169.109.196 (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The whole article is imbued with POV. Of concern is the deletion of the Criticism section. See elsewhere in the Discussion. I propose that at very least, in absence of a complete re-write, the Criticism page should be re-instated, with sections on ethology and ethics in relation to this philosophy.Doc Richard (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Individualism sidebar
Anyone for making an individualism sidebar? Jadabocho (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama and Individualism
The following text was removed from the Individualism and US history section of the article: President Barack Obama has criticized American individualism in his 2008 Election Day speech in Grant Park, Chicago. The reference provided was Obama's victory speech, transcribed at the New York Times website: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/speeches/obama-victory-speech.html

This statement is clearly POV / Original research based from a primary source, and should be removed. Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources is clear. From the overview: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."--Pariah (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

i know this isn't a forum but...
From my personal experience and analysis of the u.s.a or any country in general, I don't remember any being appropriately individualistic in my mind. Can someone tell me the classification for individualistic countries --69.176.17.7 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Aristotle on the list of thinkers
By what merit is aristotle on this list? Which one of his works talks about individualism? Tyriel (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Individualism and society
The second sentence in the section titled "Individualism and society" is inconsistent with both what is commonly understood as Rouseau's own perspective and with comments latter in the same section refering to the possibility of society being in our individual self-interest. At the least, it is an opinion but it is not written as such. If no one disagrees, I am going to remove it in one week. Blake612Blake612 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A very American POV
As a UK reader, there are several parts of this article that I find to be quite heavily rooted in an American POV:

1. The opening paragraph links 'individualism' with 'the exercise of ones goals and desires', and this link to me is not universally accepted as part of individualism. Were a Christian to convert to Buddhism, for instance, and take the philosophical stance of eliminating his desires, he would not under this definition be considered an individualist despite his actions demonstrating personal choices in contradiction with his social group.

2. The part giving a link to a single study, by a quite controversial author, placing a subjective value on individualism across countries, is absurd. The link is presented as if it were the result of a repeatable scientific study when in fact the individualism scores are basically pulled from one guy's arse. If it is to be included here (and at the moment, it just reads like Americans telling people how they wish to be seen) then other views on individualism in different nations must be considered. The notion that the US is the most individualist nation on Earth is, frankly, a total joke to someone in the UK given how much deference Americans show to politicians on their side.

3. The notion that the UK after WW2 was a 'mix' of US individualism and (I am guessing) Soviet totalitarianism is another notion that would just make a British reader laugh out loud. It understand it is currently popular in America to paint institutions such as the NHS as totalitarian elements in an otherwise democratic society, but that is a viewpoint at odds with basically everyone who lives here, and I can provide links to material making that very clear.

Over all, this article appears to have been written by Americans on the right of the political spectrum, and as such carries a fairly narrow definition of individualism which is heavily tied to 'goals and desires' and 'laissez faire' economics, without much regard for differing views on what it is to be an individual (which, far from being resolved as it is implied in this article, is still a hotly contested philosophical question).

I am considering having a swing at this article myself. I've no intention of trampling over the view of individuality currently dominating this article, but I want to make clear that this is not, by a long shot, a universally accepted view on the matter. Even brief googling yields alternate, reputable views which deserve space:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07761a.htm

I will start work shortly if nobody has an serious objections. GrampaScience (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I second this. The article contains far too much Libertarian bias.  American Libertarians are a strange breed: They tend to favour individual choice when it comes to things like abortion or sexual preference, but this is usually trumped by extremely right wing views on economics or issues like socialized health care (which they associate with Soviet communism).  They feel they have a special claim to individualism as a philosophy, which they equate with selfishness, and hold to be their highest virtue.


 * I would welcome and assist any effort to broaden the perspective of this article.--Pariah (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bias
This article is utterly bias toward US Libertarianism and typical american "Life is a rat race free for all and the ultimate meaning of life is to be more wealthy/powerful than the neightbourns whoever dies with the most toys wins" world view......is laughtable at best Why Do you continue to cancel every "criticism to individualism" that people write with time and effort while the page of "collectivism" has a collection of criticism? Shenlong86 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.52.16 (talk)


 * Well, Special:Contributions/93.34.52.16, the article talks about a socialism-minded guy born in Wales who first used the term, and then mentions a few Brits who used it. The article quotes French political ideas, Japanese and European views, then quotes a Dutch guy who says the US is the most individualistic of nations. Finally there's one short section on individualism in the US. I don't see the problem!
 * Also, sections devoted to criticism are not encouraged here. What's better is to have criticism brought up at each section of the article where appropriate, wound neatly into the text for perspective. It might be best to leave that task to those who have the subject expertise, English skills and editing ability. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Special:Contributions/93.34.52.16--I sympathize about the bias, but the point of any changes is to have less opinion in the article, not more. We can't remove the bias by adding the opposite bias.  Criticisms of libertarianism and the American Dream are irrelevant to this article--and besides, adding them only reinforces the identification of individualism wholly with libertarianism.  So please, restrict any additions to the article to well-cited facts.--Pariah (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletions of criticism section and contrast with individualism
As the collectivism article has a criticism section it is therefor necessary for the individualism article to have one as well. The first criticism of individualism is that it tends to create inequality. The other criticism I've heard is that it creates conflict rather than cooperation. Maybe we should add a notable quote for this second criticism as Showtime2009 thinks the Goldman quote adds too much weight to one criticism. Anyways I do not see too much weight on one criticism as grounds for deleting all criticism. Deletion does need to be explained Binksternet, or one could delete all the articles on say, Economics or chemistry? Also, why is the contrast with collectivism in the intro being deleted? AndreasBWagner (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is on the person who is adding (or re-adding challenged) unsourced information, not on the person who is deleting unsourced information.


 * I don't like loading the External links section with the bold heading Threats to individualism, followed by listings such as Statism and Nanny state. This is unencyclopedic in that the reader is not given any hints as to the relationships involved in these links. Instead, there should be a section written with expert sources that discusses how individualism relates to these terms.


 * In the Criticism section, the sentences beginning with "Some critics" and "Others criticize" are too imprecise. Let's have some expert commentary and discussion which can then lead to the quote by Goldman.


 * In the lead section, there was the unsupported statement "Individualism is opposed to collectivism"... This statement was long unsupported, and you subsequently added two URLs:
 * Chakrabarty, S (2009) The Influence of National Culture and Institutional Voids on Family Ownership of Large Firms: A Country Level Empirical Study Journal of International Management, 15(1)


 * Regarding the Chakrabarty piece, I can't get the whole article, only the abstract. I do not see the word "individualism" stated in the abstract.


 * In the Ratner piece, the concepts of individualism and collectivism are both chewed up and spit out as being too closely tied to concrete social conditions to be used as halves of a dichotomy or poles of a continuum. A close reading of the Ratner reference removes its support of the statement "Individualism is opposed to collectivism." Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Improvement of individualism article
As it can be seen i have proceded to add important aspects on the subject of individualism. as far as the section on "methodological individualism" it will be nice if the people who wrote that could provide the references.--Eduen (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will join you. Zazaban (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A whole lot in this article is conflicting and should be deleted
Most, if not all of the so called leftist ideologies, if not even ideas such as mutualism object to the idea of the individual being outside of the influence of society and do not call of a world in which the general population around one does not and cannot influence the individual. They stipulate forms of organization which entail the individuals submission to certain collective norms and practises. I am very worried about the development of the article. Just cause a political system or ideology places a large value on the individuals rights,strengths or importance to the collective does not mean it should be put into the branch of individualsm which is for those who deny society itself!

I will start deleting things within a month if I have not recieved a reply by then.81.170.157.91 (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As I see it many things sometimes in contradiction with each other have been called and have called themselves "individualist" and wikipedia intends to present a neutral point of view not supportive of a particular type of individualism over another. The reason why both liberals and anarchists have called themselves "individualist" is that both ideologies do include people with this negation of society that you talk about. But it happens that both yuppies and vagabond beggars deny society in a different form. As such both Ayn Rand and Diogenes of Sinope have been called individualists. Being specific in the case of mutualism it happens that it is mainly associated with a political position which calls itself INDIVIDUALIST anarchism and so it has to be included in an article about individualism even if you might not like it that it is also a kind of socialism. As such the mutualist Benjamin Tucker calls himself many times "individualist" but also described himself as a "anarchistic socialist".

Also on the issue of capitalism individualists have conflicting views. Liberals like neoclassical economists support it and so they are included in this article in the section called "right libertarianism" but individualist anarchists have tended to view capitalism as submission of the individual to a boss and (usually from nietzschetian influenced semi aristocratic views) as a system that fosters mediocrity in culture due to its mass consumerism and the loss of sincerity and authenticity that is entailed in having to sell and to sell oneself.

Now if you plan to "start deleting things" I suggest you first become informed about wikipedia´s policy on vandalism since it happens that this article is well sourced in most of its sections and so your deletions can be easily reverted if they happen to be of sourced affirmations. Maybe if you instead want to be more specific on which particular affirmation or section you do not agree with then we could start from there and have a more productive approach towards the goal of this section which is improving this article.--Eduen (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well we got a discussion going which is great and I would only have deleted it if you didn't bring up arguments for or against it. I'll update mine later one when I have time. Thanks.81.170.157.91 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk archive
Recommend establishing a talk archive for this article. All is One (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ I didn't feel like doing it manually, so I've set up a bot that will archive any threads that are inactive for 30 days (while always leaving the most recent 5 threads regardless of activity level). --IllaZilla (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

confusing grammar
second sentence of the article...

" Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so independence and self-reliance..."


 * an alternative might be individualists promote independence and self-reliance through the exercise of one's goals and desires.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Linked, but not referenced in this article

 * I was interested in seeing how individualism transformed from Friedrich Nietzsche to Milton Freedman but Nietschze isn't mentioned in this article.
 * The What links here page includes Karl Popper but he is not referenced in this article, and individualism is not referenced in his article. I guess that's more of a technical issue than a content one. patsw (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

 * Etymology shouldn't be the first section after lede--we need to know what individualism is before we talk about etymology/history (this is consistent with other articles).
 * "The individual" section seems like lede content.
 * Philosophical should go before political (it's broader/is foundation for political stuff)
 * Objectivism is a type of egoism (I messed this up by not putting in extra "="s to have it as a heading under egoism)
 * "Individualism and society" section is the type of thing that would go after an explanation of what individualism is and it's history--it's about how individualism relates to some other thing. It's consistent with other articles to have the section order basically go like this: lede, explanation of what the thing is, etymology, history, "the article thing and X", criticisms.
 * "Individualism as creative independent lifestyle" section seems to be "individualism and society content"

Byelf2007 (talk) 23 May 2012

1. The etymology of a word denotes according to english wikipedia "the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time. By an extension, the term "etymology (of a word)" means the origin of a particular word." Since it deals with meaning and in the sense that a word is usually and has been used it has to go in the beginning and that is the case in many articles in this enciclopedia. As far as other wikipedia political philosophy articles etymology goes right after the introduction in the articles liberalism and anarchism. In the article conservatism the latin origin of the word is given right after the word conservatism itself. If in other political philosophies articles this does not happen (such as the socialism article) it is because they do not report at all the etymology of the word.--Eduen (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Egoism refers to self interest and sovereignty over oneself and as such is very close to a synomym of individualism itself. Objectivism, which is the philosophical system of the US pro laizzes faire capitalism liberal author Ayn Rand, is as "egoist" as other philosophies mentioned here such as freethought, libertinism, individualist anarchism and hedonism. As such either one decides to include all of these within "ethical egoism" or one decides to leave it as it was before. For me it is clear all of these philosophies as well as Rand´s Objectivism are "egoisms" but are much more than that as so it is better to leave them on themselves. This also since they are very divergent as far as geographical and historical contexts of origin, development and of sociological context--Eduen (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

3.*""Individualism and society" section is the type of thing that would go after an explanation of what individualism is and it's history--it's about how individualism relates to some other thing."

Well. I really don´t see where this article gives a "history of individualism". The closest to this is the "etymology" section which deals with the first recorded uses of the word (but which user Byelf2007 decided to drop it almost at the end of this article. In the previous version to the edits of user Byelf2007 this was the order. 1.Introduction. 2. Etymology. 3. The individual 4. The individual and society I think for these reasons.--Eduen (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

4."*"Individualism as creative independent lifestyle" section seems to be "individualism and society content""

"Individualism as creative independent lifestyle" deals with something very specific as compared to the very general section "individualism and society". In the previous section this important part of the word individualism had its specific section for this reason I think.--Eduen (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Moral worth ?
Notwithstanding the source of the definition used in the wiki article (Britannica), it seems wholly incorrect.

Morality is defined in dictionaries typically in terms such as:
 * "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct."

And while the Britannica article begins:
 * "individualism, political and social philosophy that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual"

It continues, for instance:
 * "The French aristocratic political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–59) described individualism in terms of a kind of moderate selfishness that disposed humans to be concerned only with their own small circle of family and friends."

Individualism not as an emphasis on morality but as a focus of interest in the individual's immediate social grouping
 * "Tocqueville wrote that by leading “each citizen to isolate himself from his fellows and to draw apart with his family and friends,” individualism sapped the “virtues of public life,” for which civic virtue and association were a suitable remedy"

From individualism spring moral consequences.
 * "For the Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt (1818–97), individualism signified the cult of privacy"

Individualism as a cult of privacy
 * etc etc etc

The Britannica article is in fact entirely composed of citations, that detail the emergence and evolution of the term, from the French Revolution on and across nations, none of which even suggest that individualism is fundamentaly concerned with morality ie with the notion of right(aka good) and wrong(aka evil).

This wiki article has taken the Brtitannica term "moral worth" and spun it into its more extreme opening stating that: "Individualism is the moral stance...". There seems to me be no evidence that this is true and copious amounts, the Britannica article itself for instance, that show that it is not true. Describing individualism as a moral stance puts the cart firmly before the horse, and, by framing what follows, leads to a gross distortion.

I propose that all references to morality in the introduction be deleted and moved to within the body of the article where they should detail the way the concept of individualism became a political football for normative social thinkers.

LookingGlass (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that the word moral can have two meanings (actually more). Moral can be equivalent to fine qualities such as ethical, incorruptible, noble, righteous, virtuous; but it can also mean "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour." Now, I'm not native English, and words can have slightly different connotations in different languages, but, "moral stance" to me does not mean "noble stance" but simply "viewpoint if something is right or wrong". So I think the "moral stance" in the beginning of the article is fine. But if you find it a problem, why don't we try to find an equivalent that suits all of us?  Lova Falk     talk   12:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to the "the moral worth of the individual" in the defintion of individualism in the version of 22 september 2012, I checked three other dictionaries: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/individualism?q=individualism, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individualism, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/individualism?s=t and neither of them says anything about moral worth. So here I agree with your point of view, that "moral worth" should be removed from the definition - as it is in the present revision.  Lova Falk     talk   12:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think LookingGlass's argument is entirely WP:SYNTH. He's disregarded part of a source in favor of another that matches his own opinion better and then he interprets (warps) his favored part to come to a conclusion about individualism.  I am most concerned with the comment "Describing individualism as a moral stance...leads to a gross distortion" and "none of which even suggest that individualism is fundamentaly concerned with morality."  This gives me a huge red and flashing POV alert.--v/r - TP 16:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Improving the Definition of Individualism
The first two paragraphs of this template discuss something individualistic in nature, but certainly do not define Individualism. This is essentially the primary concern of the "Collective Individualism" and "Moral Worth?" sections of this talk page. The first paragraph seems to be trying to define Individualism as an individual's value or an individual's personal ambition and makes the false claim that Individualism somehow advocates isolation with the term "self-reliance". These two paragraphs make no mention of sovereignty, which is the basis of Individualism. Instead I propose a definition of Individualism as defined by one of its modern thinkers and articulators, as opposed to a dictionary entries or encyclopedia articles.

''Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses the sovereignty of the individual. It regards one - everyone - as a sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to one’s own life, a right derived from one’s nature as a rational being.''

Sometimes to properly define something, it is also necessary to define not what it is, but what it is not. So, contrasting the concept of the Individual (i.e. a person) with the concept of the Self (i.e. my person) would help support the definition. Again I propose the following as an elaboration of the definition by one of Individualism's modern thinkers as opposed to dictionary entries.

''Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among people, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. An individualist is one who recognizes the inalienable individual rights every human—one's own and those of others. An individualist is one who says: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.”''

The existing second paragraph seems to define Individualism or Individualists in terms of uniqueness using the term "quirk" as if to imply individuals are abnormal, and something about liberation of the individual. I don't quite understand how any of that relates to the philosophy. The second sentence has merits...

Liberalism, existentialism and anarchism are examples of movements that take the human individual as a central unit of analysis.

... and I wouldn't mind keeping it in the introduction.

In short I propose scrapping the first two paragraphs in favor of those above.--118.36.229.221 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you check more definitions and thoughts on the subject besides those of Ayn Rand who comes from a liberal pro-capitalist US cultural and political background. Nevertheless her views don´t really come into contradiction with what has been affirmed here and self-reliance has clearly to do a lot with sovereignty as shown by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Sovereignty clearly has to do with "autonomy" and isolation is a form of seeking autonomy although not the only possible one or the only form to view the issue (I suggest you check out the issue of "negative rights"). A dictionary definition tends to cover more wide use and sometimes more colloquial use of a word than a definition by a single author. On the relationship between individualism and rebelion againts normality and a desire for experimentation, i suggest that you check also humanistic inclined individualists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson or Oscar Wilde who will emphasize aesthetic and existential views on the subject. Also "individualism" certainly ends up many times in conflict with more collective and status quo opinions and that is an important theme within anarchist views of the subject as well as within aesthetic humanistic ones. A policy of wikipedia dictates that to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Neutral point of view. As an example of a reliable balanced treatment of the subject one can consider how the Enciclopedia Britannicca deals with the subject which shows sometimes differences between how specific countries and authors view the same subject.--Eduen (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * While Ayn Rand promoted liberal, pro-capitalist views, her definition of Individualism advocates none of these views. It is quite neutral.  And because she is a modern thinker on the subject, she had the benefit of influence from those before her, either directly or indirectly.  I chose Ayn Rand’s definition, not because it was from Ayn Rand, but because it gets to the heart of the what individualism is all about, the sovereignty of the individual.  The current definition does not.


 * Also, I only chose the second Ayn Rand citation because there should be some contrast between the individual and the self. If you know of a better one, let’s use it.


 * Reading trough the talk page there are others who have objected to the current definition, many for the same reasons I do, but yet the current one still stands. If consensus is the goal here on Wikipedia, consensus on this article is largely absent.  I disagree on some, but not all, of your points, but going through them one-by-one will just take this discussion on too many tangents, and that will not be constructive.


 * There is one thing we do agree on, that the fundamental basis of Individualism is the sovereignty of the individual. Can you improve the definition to articulate this to readers?--118.36.229.221 (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * well, i will check more definitions although the current one has stayed i guess since it is from the Encyclopedia Britannica and as such it is a synthesis of many other definitions. As far as other points you disagree on i think there is no other form of discussing them than to point them out specifically in this section.--Eduen (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

On individualism and narcissism
I cannot claim to be an expert on the subject of "narcissism" but by looking at the wikipedia article on it, it seems it has been mostly developed within the field of psychology and sometimes within social psychology. As such, i have to point out that one can very well see it as a little distant from the specific concept of "individualism", which as this article shows, tends to be used more within fields such as political philosophy, political economy, political sociology and ethical philosophy. As far as me seeing it included within the "See also" section as a link, frankly i did not have too much of a strong feeling towards either opposing the inclusion or total agreement with it and i sensed why someone thought it was related to "individualism". As far as incluiding "Narcissism" within the category "individualism" that I will tend to object mainly for the reason dealt with first here. Still I think it will give more strenght to the argument of those who want to link the two concepts that they bring in the references and citations where the subject of "individualism" is dealt with in "Narcissism studies" and how it is dealt with there instead of just engaging in an edit war.--Eduen (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

narcissism
narcissism is an important aspect of individualism not covered by this article and arguably ought to be in the individualism template. --Penbat (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Since we seem to promote sarcasm here, I think this is a great idea. Let's add it under a special heading titled "Insulting And Offensive Characterizations Of Individualism Used by Those That Disagree With It".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.36.229.221 (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting arguing here on the talk page, instead of in edit summaries. If I understand you correctly, your argument is that adding Narcissism to the Individualism template is insulting - is that correct?  Lova Falk     talk   12:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe Penbat's request to even consider narcissism as some aspect of individualism was his/her attempt to subtly insult the philosophy by sarcastically associating a negative personality trait to it, and use Wikipedia as a conduit for publishing a personal statement. Narcissism is a characterization of individualism used by those that wish to demonize it. Any reasonable person should be able to see that by honoring and respecting the rights of the individual, one also honors the rights of other individuals. I don't think Wikipedia's talk page should be used for subtle sarcasm, or to publish popular insults so as to make a statement. And I'm disappointed that I've even had to explain this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.36.229.221 (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is good that you explain this, because now I understand your reaction. However, I don't think Penbat's suggestion was sarcastic or a way of demonizing it, I think s/he was serious. Anyway, Wikipedia is all about sources, and I don't know what the sources say about individualism and narcissism. That is the question.  Lova Falk     talk   13:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Serious? Yeah, right. I'm going to post a picture of my butt on the Donkey talk page and suggest it be published.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.36.229.221 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, serious. If you feel strongly about it, the only way to prevent Narcissism to be added to the Individualism template is to discuss this with good arguments.  Lova Falk     talk   13:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be better to move narcissism up from "See also" to the article body, with text describing the connection. Quite a few books have contrasted or compared individualism with or to narcissism. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My proposal: stop edit-warring, let Narcissism be out of the article for now. Start with citing sources here on the talk page and we can then agree on if and how narcissism can be mentioned in the article. Lova Falk    talk   16:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I didnt press the issue of narcissism going into the template. Actually a while back i put it into the template and somebody reverted with a comment. What is totally out of order is the IP user continually deleting my comment on narcissism on this talk page which is totally disrepectful and against Wiki rules. I am pretty much happy with the status quo (although in theory Binksternets suggestion is quite a good one) but the IP user is doggedly even taking narcissism out of the See Also list which is absurd.--Penbat (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil contributor here. Sorry it didn't work out the way you hoped Lova. But nevertheless the case for using offensive terms to mischaracterize this philosophy has not yet been made. So I propose what has been demanded of me this whole time: discussion and consensus. --118.36.229.221 (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * well Binksternet has weighed in and made the interesting idea that mention of narcissism in the article should be increased not decreased by having its own section which would allow the two terms to be compared.--Penbat (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The case that individualism is somehow related to narcissism, except with the desire to discredit it, has not yet been made.--118.36.229.221 (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Binksternet says "Quite a few books have contrasted or compared individualism with or to narcissism".--Penbat (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. Ok, and when you cite your sources, you can simply say "quite a few books".  Is that how it works here?--118.36.229.221 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Er no. If this section gets done it would have to be properly referenced by reliable sources.--Penbat (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Show me the sources! And if the sources use the term to discredit the philosophy, then the section should say so. And the fact that you have not yet cited any sources, proves that you never had any in the first place.  So, now you feel obligated to search for sources that justify your opinion.  So much for objectivity.--118.36.229.221 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "narcissism" should not be attached to the article without a proper source specifically discussing the philosophy/politics of individualism. It can't be just a comment somewhere that "individualists are narcissistic." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.94.64.219 (talk)

The above books are merely a quick start on the connection. Search for more and you will find more. Narrow your search to include philosophy or politics if you wish and you will find more focused results. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above sources seem to put Individualism in the context of sociology and psychology, rather than philosophy. The philosophy of Individualism can really be summarized in 4 words: "Sovereignty of the individual". All that means is that one person or group does not have ownership or jurisdiction over another person.  To imply that Individualism has anything to do with loving oneself or thinking oneself to be better than others is a complete distortion.  One of Individualism's more modern thinkers had this to say:


 * Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among people, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. An individualist is one who recognizes the inalienable individual rights every human—one's own and those of others. An individualist is one who says: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.”


 * This defines Individualism as the philosophy of human equality, peer recognition, voluntary cooperation, and I would argue simple kindness. To assume narcissism from this is absurd.


 * Once again, I propose removing any relationship between Individualism and narcissism. --118.36.228.73 (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Binksternet - Each one of those sources has a qualifier or doesn't say that individualism include narcissism. First source: " increases in individualism and narcissism" - doesn't say at all they are the same thing.  Only that both are on the rise.  Second source - "encourage narcissism if carried to extremes are individualism" says extremes of individualism.  Third source: "personality trait...a continuum of self-esteem and individualism appeared to exist..." says that narcissism personalities have traits such as individualism.  Not the other way around.  I can go on for the other sources.  Just because the words appear close to each other does not mean that one describes the other.  Find a source that says "Individualism is an extension of narcissism" or "Individualism is based on narcissism."--v/r - TP 03:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see more of a connection than you do, certainly enough to place a "See also" link to narcissism, which was one of the issues under discussion here. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a connection between extreme individualism and narcissism is what I see and your sources support that. Similarly, there are connections between extreme Islam and terrorism.  What's your point?--v/r - TP 15:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article title here is Individualism, not Individualism (philosophy), Individualism (politics) or Individualism according to Ayn Rand. If you want to create an article defined only by Rand then good luck with that. Just don't get in the way of this larger article having a larger viewpoint, covering more bases. The social, psychological and religious views of individualism have been widely commented upon, and narcissism is seen to be connected. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice finds, Binksternet. That's enough to sway me that the link is appropriate here. Might even be worth working some of those into the article itself. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi all. It might be useful to point out that there is precedent for having two articles along the lines that Binksternet suggests. There is an altruism (ethics) article which is related to but separate from the altruism article. The former deals with the ethical doctrine and that latter takes a more sociological/psychological perspective. This might be the long term solution as it seems like 118.36.229.221 and T are concerned that some of that social sciences research is being attributed to the moral philosophy of individualism rather than the sociological/psychological phenomenon. Given that the article in its current form focuses on the ethical doctrine perhaps this concern is valid. I suspect that once a fuller account of the narcissism/individualism relationship is included these concerns may be assuaged. That content could even be placed under the sub heading "sociological/psychological research" (to eventually become a seperate page).


 * In the immediate future, would it will suffice to have narcissism included in the ‘see also’ section as a reflection of the fact that researchers have posited a relationship that should be expanded upon, while excluding it from the template because that relationship is not yet described anywhere in Wikipedia? Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Narcissism is basically the quality of knowing you're awesome so personally I take this as a compliment. --86.164.2.130 (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Collectivism
I would be happy to see the lead section mentioning that individualism is traditionally seen as the complement of collectivism—very much as egoism is the complement of altruism—to emphasize the individual-versus-society dichotomy. EIN (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Individualism, recent edits.
Hi Trovatore, thanks for your helpful comments on this. My point was though that if you saw non-compliant changes, the duty should be on you to make the required changes, while respecting the good changes which were made by Hendrick 99, (and mine afterwards).

Just to delete both edits is a backward step. Why not change the words you think need changed (I don't speak American English!), and a gentle reminder to Hendrick 99 about his non-compliance? He wasn't just being non-compliant, in my view his edit contained some very worthwhile rephrasing independently of the language issues.

TonyClarke (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, if you examine the edit, the entire point of it was to change the English variety. This is especially clear if you examine other edits he made at about the same time.  Any "good" changes that might have been included are beside the point &mdash; the entire edit should be reverted, and if you think he actually made any improvements (which is not clear to me), then those can be added separately.  What good changes? --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would add that, by my lights, there is at least a small preference for stability in articles, so that edits need to justify themselves by actively improving the article. Any edit that neither helps nor harms an article, should be reverted; only edits that actually improve it deserve to stay.  When a large number of changes are made in a single edit to widely varying parts of the article, if the edit has a controversial part, then the whole edit should be reverted and the changes discussed one-by-one.  It is usually best to edit one piece at a time, so that it's clear what you're doing. --Trovatore (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Trovatore (a fellow biker I see!)

These are some of the changes from the beginning of the edit which I think improve the article in terms of simpler language and shorter words. The non-compliance is unfortunate, and a charitable approach would be that he/she used their own language, inadvertently non complying. Wonder if anyone has raised this with Hendrick 99?

I think there is clear evidence of an intention to improve the article, but no evidence in this edit at least of the intention to de-Americanise (or de-Americanize). Also I think we should be assessing edits on their own merits, not on the merits of previous work by the editor, unless that editor has been highlighted as persistently subversive or a vandal.

Your other point that edits should usually be made piecemeal: I don't think this should be a rule, as I have sometimes taken a whole article and rewritten it, then posted it, with no objections arising. Also I have sometimes revised a whole article or section for plain language, which can span the whole article and done piecemeal would be too burdensome. I think that is what Hendrick 99 was doing here.

So I think the article was improved, and the non-compliant parts are easily fixed. Since you raised the non-compliance, I feel you are best placed to sort it.

achieve precedence over -> supersede (simpler ) promote-> encourage (No noncompliance, also more accurate.) interests -> affairs (simpler, shorter word) makes the individual its focus -> centres around the individual (Less words, but non compliant so that not its main intent?) lend credence to -> favour, (shorter, non compliance but not its intent? would argue -> claims (shorter, better) precisely -> that it. (Shorter words)

I could go on!

In good faith

TonyClarke (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're looking at the whole picture of Hendrick 99's edits. It strains credulity to claim he/she was acting in good faith.  Look at the diff I posted on talk:rights and how it breaks down &mdash; every change is either from an American spelling to a Commonwealth spelling, from a neutral word to a Commonwealth spelling, or from an American spelling to a neutral word.  I broke them down one by one till I got tired of it, and there weren't any exceptions in the first five or six changes.
 * In this article he's been slightly cleverer, sticking in more irrelevant changes around them, but the agenda is still there. Here are some of the changes I think were the point of the edit:
 * "emphasizes" -> "stresses" : Not particularly either better or worse as a word choice, but it takes out an "ize" spelling, which I think was why he did it.
 * "makes the individual its focus" -> "centres around the individual": This one is absolutely a poorer word choice; the original is clearly better.  There's no reason to do it except to get in the Commonwealth spelling of "centre"
 * "the individualist does not lend credence to" -> "the individualist does not favour": Change in meaning here.  Both the original and the new can be criticized.  But the point is to add the "favour" spelling.
 * "are based upon predominantly" -> "centre primarily around": Who says "centre around"?  Again, that's a poorer word choice than the original.
 * So basically I think there's a clear agenda here and don't buy that he's acting in good faith. However, assuming arguendo that he were, there would still be enough questionable choices to revert.  I agree with you that sometimes you can do a big noncontroversial cleanup edit, but then if anyone objects to any part of it, you should expect the whole thing to be reverted.  You can't make a dozen different changes in the same edit and ask people to work from there, if they don't like parts of it &mdash; the whole thing gets reverted, and you discuss the changes from the status quo ante. --Trovatore (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not the way Jonesey95 saw one of the edits (see Hendrick 99 talk page, 4 August 2013 (UTC)), Jonesey was happy to change the bits which seemed wrong, while leaving what seemed good. Hendrick seems to me someone who is new and struggling on WIkipedia. To say this is a campaign to delete American wording is verging on paranoia: none of the other editors have seen his work this way.

To revert rather than amend is not helping someone who is struggling and perhaps a bit opinionated like most of us. It also doesn't help me, whose edit was caught up in your reversion. I don't think its fair that you are now expecting others, possibly me, to re insert the best bits of Hendrick 99's post, and also to reinsert the subsequent posts. But if you insist on maintaining your position, then so be it. Good luck. Happy cycling!

TonyClarke (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeking a third opinion
I have added the above conversation as we are seeking a third opinion on this dispute. 20:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

3O Response: I've got to agree with Trovatore on this one. The edits do seems like a poorly veiled attempt to remove American English. The other changes made don't seem to add anything in the way of substance or clarity. At best they are subjective stylistic changes. I'm sorry your edits got tangled up in this TonyClarke, but it would make more sense to paste back in your changes, rather than trying to separate the grain from the chaff in the disputed edit.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Individualism in evaluative orientation
On December 2, 2013, the following good faith addition was removed for apparent conflict of interest. I am the author of one of the cited sources, so, per Wikipedia's position, I am suggesting it on this talk page. If someone without an apparent conflict of interest thinks Wikipedia would be enhanced by adding this material (or parts of it) to the Individualism article, please do so. Langchri (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Differences in the individualism of different individuals correspond to differences in genes, brains, personalities and, in the case of individual computers, in algorithms.   This suggests that both individualism and anti-individualism may merit legal protections similar to those extended to sexual orientation. It also supports the hypothesis that individualism is not a mere human invention, but an evolved polymorphism, a fundamental social dimension likely to span independent cultures.

This article is about a political philosophy. The things you are describing sound more like a discussion of biology. I will think this is not relevant to this article unless you can prove that the word "individualism" is used in biology also, which i doubt.--Eduen (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the concern. I think the question is whether individualism is studied in biology (this article is about individualism, regardless of the particular words biologists use to name it). I've made the sources visible below. One is from psychology. Each of the other four makes an independent case that political or moral stances arise from biology (additional sources can be found in the evaluative diversity article). I recognize practical reasons for discussion of the biological origins of individualism to take place in an article not edited by political philosophers, but, in that case, I think the goals of Wikipedia would be well-served if this main individualism article included a link to that other article. I don't see justification for breaking out the individualism aspects of the evaluative diversity article into a separate "individualistic evaluative orientations" article, so I am suggesting that the individualism article link to the evaluative diversity article directly (along with explanation of the relevance). Langchri (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

None of these articles you are proposing us to consider have even the name "individual" in their titles. There is a wikipedia article called "individual" which might serve these subjects you are proposing better since talking about "individual(s)" will have more biological and psychological implications than talking about "individualism". Individualism clearly has more to do with politics and philosophy.--Eduen (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As i read the article "evaluative diversity" it seems that it does not deal with the decisions of individuals only but also of groups. It also does that from a psychologist point of view. I see it too distant from the issue of individualism or only marginally conected and many other things just as connected or more.--Eduen (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess the question is whether you want to acknowledge the perspective that controversy over individualism (like controversy over liberalism and conservativism) was a form of bigotry arising from genetic, neurological and psychological diversity (i.e. individualism and anti-individualism belong in the same category as sexism and feminism). If you want to include that perspective, then what other article would be more helpful? I agree this perspective has come at political philosophy from outside the field (including from evolutionary biology, as well as from genetics, neuroscience, and psychology), maybe even as a criticism of the field. I think Wikipedia's commitment to neutral point of view entails acknowledging any well-sourced controversy, even if it comes from outside the field. If contrary evidence arises, we can add it to the individualism article and say the controversy was explored and settled, but I don't think it is appropriate to simply ignore the perspective. If you need a source that specifically used the word "individualism" to describe a part of an ecosystem (i.e. something that needs to be both protected and limited), you can cite "Moral Ecology Approaches"--it is a peer-reviewed academic source, but I wrote it myself, so someone else should decide whether to add this to the individualism article. Langchri (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 one external links on Individualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120204155505/http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf to http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160214200513/http://www.againstallauthority.org/NativeAmericanAnarchism.html to http://www.againstallauthority.org/NativeAmericanAnarchism.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110723130358/http://www.acracia.org/1-23a58lainsumision.pdf to http://www.acracia.org/1-23a58lainsumision.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110723130358/http://www.acracia.org/1-23a58lainsumision.pdf to http://www.acracia.org/1-23a58lainsumision.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012054206/http://eljorobado.enlucha.info/bicicleta/bicicleta/ciclo/01/17.htm to http://eljorobado.enlucha.info/bicicleta/bicicleta/ciclo/01/17.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110723130358/http://www.acracia.org/1-23a58lainsumision.pdf to http://www.acracia.org/1-23a58lainsumision.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090225212442/http://ytak.club.fr:80/natytak.html to http://ytak.club.fr/natytak.html
 * Added tag to http://www.viruseditorial.net/pdf/anarquismo%20individualista.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150908072801/http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/illegalistsDougImrie.htm to http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/illegalistsDougImrie.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105095946/http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html to http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029212045/http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/sundstrom/Sundstrommanifesto.pdf to http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/sundstrom/Sundstrommanifesto.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121104040047/http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm to http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Collective Individualism
What about the view that everyone is an individual, and that to treat others with courtesy is derived not out of social obligation, but an individualized realization of live-and-let-live, that you and I are both individuals and I have no place subjegating you, just as you have no place subjegating me? Most comments here are either "the self always comes first" OR "an individual is greedy and irresponsible," both of which seem to be misconstuctions of what individualism is. Moreover, to collectively label all individualists anti-social or non-altruistic seems to be a bit paradoxical, lumping individuals into one collective category.


 * I very much agree. Individualism is not about the importance of the individual, but about the rights of the individual.  An individualist recognizes not only his or her own rights, but also the rights of other (all) individuals.  Individualism does not advocate pursuit of one's own interests at the expense of others as doing so would violate the rights of those other individuals.  Instead Individualism advocates yielding to the rights of all individuals.

"Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. -- Ayn Rand (One of Individualism's 'thinkers')"


 * I also find it quite disingenuous that this article has so few citations and references from the actual list of "thinkers" in this very same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.32.242.241 (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You have to think of a spectrum from Individualistic to Collectivist. Ultimate Individualism is indeed selfish, whilst the 'Individualism' mentioned above, which starts to consider others, is a step away from Individualism on the spectrum towards the Collective (because it starts to recognise a collective 'right'). LeapUK (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Individualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207042220/http://i-studies.com/journal/n/pdf/nsi-17.pdf to http://i-studies.com/journal/n/pdf/nsi-17.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070118050402/http://humaniststudies.org/humphil.html to http://humaniststudies.org/humphil.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105095946/http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html to http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609075437/http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html to http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103160534/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctymio/leftlibP%26PA.pdf to http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctymio/leftlibP%26PA.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101119120030/http://quotes.dictionary.com/The_surest_defense_against_Evil_is_extreme_individualism to http://quotes.dictionary.com/The_surest_defense_against_Evil_is_extreme_individualism

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Individualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130233229/http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/What_is_Humanism to http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/What_is_Humanism

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Lasseiz-faire capitalism
I'm removing the word 'radical' from the section regarding lasseiz-faire capitalism. It violates the NPOV.
 * This was an August 15th 2007 comment. Was not getting archived because it wasn't signed/ dated. North8000 (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Goods and bads

 * bad: egoism
 * good: you don't care about a particular collectivism; but the result might be a wider collectivism based on the definition of the person as a notion, which is more fundamental than the definition of the country (countries evolved long after personhood) the political party, religion or other metaphysical world view (for example atheism). That doesn't cancel nationality. It redefines it metalogically deeper via the more basic notion of the individual itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.74.225.5 (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Criticism
Could we get a criticism section? The collectivism article has one, so this one should, too.--Beneficii (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, why not? There is the Anti-individualism article which takes an academically critical approach. TonyClarke (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I suppose there must be some authors questioning how "individualism" is sometimes used to give a more attractive coat to ideologies really supportive of oligarchies, as it can legitimize disproportional distribution of power favoring some individuals, even if those ultimately reduce the individual freedoms of the large majority. This notion is possibly expressed by those mentioned as seeing individualism and collectivism as not necessarily conflicting, as, in theory, a collective organization limiting the potential of oligarchy would arguably ultimately tend to amplify individual liberties for the population at large, rather than limiting them and making them "slaves" of the collective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.234.132.123 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I came here looking for the criticism of individualism and only found the multitude of alternative takes on individualism.