The problem with individualism | Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad

Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad discusses how different cultures understand the self.

In Western society, individualism is everywhere – whether it’s being fuelled by capitalism, technology or populist politics, we are being encouraged to think of ourselves more than ever before. But how do other parts of the world understand the self? Eminent philosopher Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad explores this timeless question.

#ChakravarthiRamPrasad #individualism #collectivism

Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad, FBA is the Distinguished Professor of Comparative Religion and Philosophy at Lancaster University. His research focuses on Indian religions – Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism – and comparative phenomenology, epistemology, metaphysics and philosophy of religion.

Visit IAI.tv for our full library of debates, talks, articles and podcasts from international thought leaders and world-class academics.

The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics.

[TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

What do you think of this talk? Leave a comment below.

[landonmiller]

The only problem with individualism is there's not enough of it around.

[IAMD]

Lack of individual responsibility is the problem, and lack of communication with people unlike your own perspectives is the problem of tribal individualism.

[cathy]

I particularly appreciate the speaker's idea of perspectival self, a unique (but relationally conditioned) vantage point emanating from a shared substrate consciousness. There is valid phenomenology (even emerging science) to support this and certainly much to be learned from Vedic and other rich sources of Eastern wisdom. But I am also wary of deeming western individualism a completely negative turn. As a female I am aware that my chances of being educated enough to write this would have been poor under a Vedic Devaraja / caste-based societal structure which was shot through with immutable hierarchy. Humanity has benefited from a dash of individualism (as well as suffered) and I suggest when moving the discussion forward to a new paradigm the gains of basic rights and responsibilities that have been promoted by individualism must be woven in, otherwise valid ideas will be met with resistance.

[louislemar]

Individualism is an objective fact. It is not based on any level of subjectivity. Individualism is an ideology which recognises key facts about human nature and its relationship to reality. In metaphysics, individualism recognises that the individual is the metaphysical unit of reality, that no collective has metaphysical primacy, that any group as such, whether it's based on the family, race, sex, class, nationality, religion etc is merely an abstraction of a particular number of individuals. In epistemology individualism recognises that the individual has control over his mind. He alone has the power to exert mental effort, focus and direct his awareness to the object of his focus. He has cognitive volition and control of his reasoning faculty. The individual alone forms judgements, evaluations and conclusions and does so by choice. Individuals can share ideas, but each individual has to do their own reasoning for themselves, there is no such thing as a collective brain or a collective thought. Every thought appears in the mind of some individual. In ethics, individualism recognises that every individual has their own life to live, he is an end in himself. The metaphysical value of individuals is equal. No individual has a right to rule over another. Every individual must therefore be free, free to think and act in order to identify, evaluate and act in pursuit of values he requires to sustain his life. This point manifests itself in the conception of individual rights, which acts as a bridge between morality and politics, between the individual and his relationship with others. Individual rights protect man's mind and his freedom of action from other individuals who may potentially seek to coerce him into acting against his judgement and his life by exerting physical force against him. Government's are instituted by men to secure individual rights and to act as the individuals agent of self-defence.

[thstroyur]

Am I the only one who thinks his academic British accent to be a tad ironically amusing?

[duaachan]

I listened to this on Spotify, I didn't know his name and now I'm sort of shocked because of his accent, I assumed he would be an old white man hahahaha.

Nice little talk on phenomenology of the subject. A lot of word play though. The literalness and formalness of the English language lends itself to an individualism, or conceiving oneself an individual amongst others. So there’s no practical way around it. Referring to yourself in English as a person within a social collective doesn’t change that the fact that your interior life is so self-centered and self-assertive. The social structure and language affords us these privileges that other traditional societies couldn’t. Subjectivity isn’t the same everywhere and it changes with people and their ways of living together. So maybe Ram-Prasad is decrying something that’s not as much of a problem as historically determined individuation but a possibility of changing subjectivity in non-Western societies.

[satanshameer]

Of course race/caste based societies like Asia would hate it