Individualism and Judachrislam

[aneeshm]

A question to Judachrislims and others who have grown up in such a society:

How "individualist" is the Judachrislamic tradition?

I define individualism in the two senses of the term that I know:

Western: the ideal of freedom from interference by the community. An individualist society is structured so that coercive interference in an individual's affairs will be minimal.

Indic: the ideal of an individual striving for perfection. (Usually, this takes the form of building up and maintaining a strong body, mind, and character.) An individualist society is structured so that institutions exist to support this process of greater individual achievement.



What is the Judachrislamic position on these two definitions? How do they relate? In general, what's the deal?

[Zevico]

Judachrislam's stance on individualism is far from being simple enough to explain in a few trifling sentences, except perhaps with the aid of a few hand puppets. Seeing as this is the internet and that I lack said hand puppets with which to show you the True Path, I suggest you consult your local Judachrislamic representative on the better answer to your question.
Edit: Pope+Mullah+Rabbi=>Judachrislamatron?

[MarkG]

i dont have an opinion on the issue but I would like to note that the term "Judachrislam" seems to value islam more as it sounds like the base of the of the other two. Diffrent terms should be suggested.

[Deity Dude]

What is Judachrislam. Is that some new cool term. It some implies that these 3 totally different religions and cultures are one.

Thats like saying "What is the average time it takes to score a point in Basefootbaskethockball?"

[Zevico]

Judeo-Christlamic?
Judachristlamic?
Chrisltamadecahedrathon?

[trev]

Although individualism is usually assumed in these traditions, particularly the christian tradition, primarily based on the idea that God deals with each person on an individual basis, God's purpose in dealing with each person is to strengthen the christian community as a whole and expand it, so the christian tradition primarily teaches community growth while individual adherents tend to incorrectly grab for personal growth, not community growth as taught.

[BeBMan]

HinduBuddhchrislamjedis.

[Elok]

Happy ChristmaHannuKwanzaakah to you.

[Theben]

The building of "strong body, mind, and character" was an ancient Greek ideal that passed into Western tradition also. I'm not sure what difference the Indic involves, other than relegating it to the the higher castes.

[Barnabas]

Christianity is very different from judaism and islam (which are very similar)

[Pekka]

I think it's just... the pursuit of happiness and dreams, you know, I think it's not so much a question of individualism in society as it is to ... what the society thinks will help this goal to be achieved. For some societies, it simply is things like good healthcare, now you might disagree with this because it doesn't sound like a society that supports individualism, but it's what we consider to be the corner stones of a good life. Equal opportunity is very liberal and very ... sort of social value, but how to achieve it is totally different. So I guess this is what you'd consider how individualism is seen in said society.

Strive to be perfect, as in mind, body and health, you can add spirituality, it's just what people want to do basically, and the role of state in that, and how to balance between supporting these goals and groups. For example, some group might strive for something that might limit the chances of some other group. It all comes down to accepting difference, for example if religion was to be a big thing, then for those who don't lke religion, they just have to suck it up. That is, a dream that is basically limiting others is not individualism in a sense that free societies support. If my personal dream is to live without seeing any religion or come in contact with religious beliefs, well, I can't complain that I'm not free because despite my wish of no contact with religion, religious people and institutions sort of bump into me regardless. To wish something to not exist is not a sign of individualism. It is what you want, and can you do it, it is not what you don't want.

So I guess it's a question of what the state chooses to support more, but that usually goes, I mean it's tax payers money if we're talking about support, so the money goes to the bigger consensus of what people think should be supported. So maybe wha tI want, maybe that doesn't get much support at all. But it doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to go solo. I think the key of individualism in a society is if I can express myself, if I can pursue my happiness going solo. Is it accepted, because it often comes donw to acceptance. Well, I accept religion and faith, and I also accept non-faith. I accept these ways, and in turn, I expect my solo ways to be accepted as well, even if it would piss off others, even if these said supported groups woudl disagree. They can disagree all they want, but they shouldn't be able to stop me, unless I'm directly interevening with their rights.

So to me it just comes down to basically how the money is directed, who gets it, but the rest of us, we need to be able to do our thing as well. I would consider thsi type of society open and more free than others.

I mean we can't be totally free, a society won't set a person free, it's a direct contradiction. If I was born in an abandoned island with no other humans, I'd be totally free. Free of everything. So if I'm born in a society, by default some rules and restrictions apply, responsibilities come down the line, so basically what a society does is... it doesn't set you free, it's only a matter of how much it restricts a person. Of course one has to consider the fact of society supporting certain actions, the things I can do are something I couldn't do in an abandoned island, but strictly speakgin from the POV of freedom, free society in itself is sort of impossible. It's a question of how much it limits you, it can't give you any new freedoms. It can't give you superpowers. But that's the way it is. And I CHOOSE to live in a society, because quite frankly, I consider the benefits to be much larger than if I was isolated.

Thus, it's always a trade off. I like the idea of complete freedom, but even then, it is always in relation to a society. Without society, I mean this idea of freedom requires that there are societies so we can compare the situation. So even that can't really be the concept and nature of freedom. It's something else.

Freedom of the mind, some people consider to be very free in prisons for example. Some people strive to greater thinking when they are physically restricted. To set oneself free doesn't ask the question of where you are. Is that freedom? If you can get past your own ego, is that freedom? Is that the limit, where we keep hitting our heads in the wall? I think a truly free society encourages and supports different typs of thought. That is, it doesn't swim in the greatness of its own ideals, pushing it like an ideology, period. It gives the possibility of the individual to seek whatever route he or she wants to take, mentally. It should provide a clean table, and then offer all kinds of options we know of, because any more we can't offer, but basically set it up and have people freely choose, have the option to change it when they so wish. With a goal of trying to free people from prevailing philosophies and modes of thought, to clear everything up, and let people decide for themselves, truly, what they want for themselves, in their on minds, trying to limit the pre-determined values and things that affects them and still sort of brings them back home. They should do so, if they so wish and only then it would be fair. That is to give equality to combatting thoughts and ideals, to not rise one above the other, to offer that is in my mind the greatest offering a society can give.

Then again, this **** would burn the first week if we did it like that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Christianity aims for a middle path, in that they reject the two ends. They reject the notion in communism and in socialism that the common good should consume the individual, and they reject the notion that the community is meaningless to individual well-being.

Christians have an obligation to each other to remain in a community with their brothers and sisters, and to their neighbours to do good to them. Both obligations are entirely voluntary. Christianity treats everyone as an individual and not as a mass which is the way that Communism breaks people into classes.

[Fake Boris]

Aneeshm, will you answer my questions about Tao-buddho-hinduism?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
They reject the notion in communism and in socialism that the common good should consume the individual, and they reject the notion that the community is meaningless to individual well-being.

How can the common good consume the individual? Also, is this just what christians believe or is there something in the Bible about this?

[Kidlicious]

Re: Individualism and Judachrislam

Originally posted by aneeshm
Judachrislims

WTF??!!!

Anyway, individualism was introduced into Western religion with protestantism as far as I know.