Relationship between Individual and Society
The relationship between the individual and society is objective in life in the essence of the dialectical relationship between the general and the particular; It has. others cannot do to the individual by the exercise of their wills, society wi dialectics of Plato and Coleridge is crucial to comprehending the apparentl For discussions of the relations between expressivism and moral idealism within roman. Dialectic between individual and society: Adorno's theory of social(Chinese Adorno's theory of social dimension from the relationship between individual and .
It is the dialectical manifestation of the relationship between the part and the whole, which is both consistent and contradictory. The reality, however, is that with fundamentally different characteristics, from a philosophical point of view, the relationship between the individual and society in both the West and the East is approached in its own ways. It can be said that the individual, the society and the relationship between them are the major point of the history of Western philosophy's study.
In particular, from around the 17th to 18th centuries - the age of the philosophical French enlightenment, along with the strong development of capitalism with private ownership, the individualism emerged and gradually became a lifestyle in the culture of the Westerners.
The first is to do whatsoever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself, and others within the permission of the law of nature: And were it not for the corruption and vitiousness of degenerate men, there would be no need of any other; no necessity that men should separate from this great and natural community, and by positive agreements combine into smaller and divided associations.
The other power a man has in the state of nature, is the power to punish the crimes committed against that law.
Man and Society
Thus, his doctrine of natural rights which outlined the fundamental rights all humans should enjoy: Locke rejected the divine right of kings to rule, and argued for constitutional government to limit the power of the monarch thus preserving the natural rights of citizens. The social contracts citizens form with the government binds them to act in support of the common good of society, and for government to do the same. Thus government develops at the consent of the governed and can be dissolved if the citizens believe that their government fails to act in their best interests.
The committee which drafted the Declaration of Independence, led by Thomas Jefferson, adapted Locke's concept of natural rights and social contract as the philosophical rationale for breaking with England. Summary, they assume that the individual is centered, promoted from the fields of politics, economics and also philosophy, culture, etc. Entering the modern Western stage, the individual and society relationship has been increasingly discussed.
Philosophy and culture are seen as effective means of communicating about individualism. One of the highlights of Western philosophy at this time is the process of digging into the "personalism" — aims at the value, autonomy and free will of the individual mentally. Some philosophical movements refer to this aspect as New Positivism, Freudianism, American and French Personality, Existentialism, etc. Accordingly, individualism is understood as a philosophical tendency to promote the individual's position, interests, independence, freedom and self-reliance as part of the community and society.
In that sense, the individual is aware of their own personality. At the same time, individualists often limit the external impact that affects their choices, goals, desires.
Independence and self-reliance are they key to individualism. This means that the intervention of social factors on personal life is limited. In other words, in the relationship between the individual and society, the role of society, community, and the collective is not valued, leading to the manifestation of extremism and individual selfishness.
If Western philosophy aims to promote or even absolutize the role and position of the individual, Eastern philosophy, which asserts the dialectical relationship between individual and society, aims at collectivism. That is a big difference between Eastern and Western thinking. For the East, individuals and the society have traditionally been approached in terms of politics, law, and customs. The highlight of this issue is expressed in terms of thought. It is marked by a system of Oriental doctrines such as Chinese, Indian and Japanese philosophies Under the influence of communal agricultural production, closed economies in villages in a long-term, Eastern cultural thought emphasizes collectivism, the role, and responsibility of individuals towards social life.
It reflects the determinants of social existence to social consciousness, making a difference from Western culture. The Socio-economic basis to generalize that thought is the mode of Asian production - one of the important interpretations of K. Engels to the East.
Accordingly, Eastern thinking is more introverted and closed; promote the communal and social sense, personal awareness in improving the society.
This is the dialectic of the individual-social relationship in Eastern culture, which is unique towards Western culture. However, in the research community, this issue has not been concerned, discussed and built into a system to look into the whole. Researching is a new direction when approached from a philosophical perspective.
Accordingly, the study of the author presents in a systematic way, from the foundation of the formation to the manifestations of individual-social relationships in Eastern culture. This affirmed the characteristic of Eastern culture in relation to the West.
Studying the issue is of great significance in both theoretical and practical aspects. Theoretically, the author's issue is to illustrate the correctness of the dialectical view between the individual and society. At any stage, individuals are not separated but placed in relation to society. In particular, society plays a decisive role towards the individual because the nature of the social organization is to solve the relationship of interests in order to create the highest possibility for individuals to carry out activities and stimulate the development.
In addition, personal improvement and responsibility also have an effect on the development of the society. It is a dialectical relationship between the individual and society. On the practical side, research has firstly oriented one of the basics of Eastern culture under the influence of the socio-economic condition when discussing the relationship between the individual and society.
On the other hand, this is an important basis for the author to analyze the changes of this relationship in Vietnam, especially at this stage, in order to promote the responsibility of each individual to the community and society. Thus, every human being is an individual. An individual - a person is an object and a phenomenon that is born, develops in interaction with people in general, not separated from people in general. However, each individual possesses the specific biological and social characteristics, in order to be distinguished from other members of society.
A person is an individual who exists objectively, indivisibly and is characterized by personalities, qualities, abilities, needs, and interests. Moreover, an individual is also a social subject that is independent of self-determination to express his or her own will, should be reflected and respected.Social influences - Individuals and Society - MCAT - Khan Academy
The society is formed by the connection between individuals. Society is the foundation of personal activities. Individuals are the mode of society's existence, the element that creates society. Individuals can only develop through relationships with society and in certain social conditions. The development of individuals is a condition, a measure of the level of development of society.
Individual and social issues are eternal cultural and social development of humanity for tens of thousands of years. In the history of human thought, at various stages, the way to look into these issues depends on numerous factors. Individual and the relationship between the individual and society in the Easterners' perception have their socio-economic foundations.
It is "Asian mode of production" [ 3p. Marx in the preface of the book Contributing to the Critique of the Faculty of Economics and Politics Through the exchanges between K. Engels, the mode of production in Asia has the following basic characteristics: Both go hand in hand, each is essentially dependent on the other. Both are interdependent on each, other. A few writings of the past and present individualists—Thomas Hobbes 17th century and John Stuart Mill 19th century have failed to recognise this interdependency.
The same misunderstanding is held by thinkers such as Benjamin Kidd and philosopher Hegel who oppose the above views. In their opinion the individual should be subordinated to society.
They say that the individual should sacrifice their welfare at the cost of society. Both these views are extreme which see the relationship between individual and society from merely the one or the other side.
But surely all is not harmonious between individual and society. The individual and society interact on one another and depend on one another. Social integration is never complete and harmonious. Currently, serious students question the utility of this prolonged debate over individual versus society.
They perceived the individual and society as different sides of the same coin. Society cannot exist without individuals nor can individuals exist outside the society.
The self may both affect certain groups and so society and be affected by these groups. All the above cases prove that man is social by nature. Human nature develops in man only when he lives in society, only when he shares with his fellow begins a common life. He knows himself and his fellow beings within the framework of society.
Indeed, man is social by nature. The social nature is not super-imposed on him or added to him rather it is inborn. It is said that needs and necessities makes man social. Man has many needs and necessities. Out of these different needs social, mental and physical needs are very important and needs fulfillment. All his needs and necessities compel him to live in society. Many of his needs and necessities will remain unfulfilled without the co-operation of his fellow beings.
His psychological safety, social recognition, loves and self-actualization needs only fulfilled only within the course of living in society. He is totally dependent for his survival upon the existence of society. Human baby is brought up under the care of his parents and family members. He would not survive even a day without the support of society. All his basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, health and education are fulfilled only within the framework of society.
He also needs society for his social and mental developments. His need for self-preservation compels him to live in society. Individual also satisfy his sex needs in a socially accepted way in a society. To fulfill his security concern at the old age individual lives in society. Similarly helplessness at the time of birth compels him to live in society. A nutrition, shelter, warmth and affection need compels him to live in society. Thus for the satisfaction of human wants man lives in society.
Hence it is also true that not only for nature but also for the fulfillment of his needs and necessities man lives in society. Society not only fulfils his physical needs and determines his social nature but also determines his personality and guides the course of development of human mind.
Development of human mind and self is possible only living in society. Society moulds our attitudes, beliefs, morals, ideals and thereby moulds individual personality. Man acquires a self or personality only living in a society.
From birth to death individual acquires different social qualities by social interaction with his fellow beings which moulds his personality. Individual mind without society remains undeveloped at infant stage. Thus, from the above discussion we conclude that Man is a social animal.
His nature and necessities makes him a social being. He also depends on society to be a human being. He acquires personality within society. There exists a very close relationship between individual and society like that of cells and body.
Relation between Individual and Society Human cannot survive without society and societies cannot exist without members. Likewise can competition with other societies strengthen the social system, while wearing out its constituent members? This idea was voiced by Rousseau who believed that we lived better in the original state of nature than under civilization, and who was for that reason less positive about classic Greek civilization than his contemporaries.
The relation between individual and society has been an interesting and a complex problem at the same time. It can be stated more or less that it has defied all solutions so far. No sociologist has been able to give a solution of the relation between the two that will be fully satisfactory and convincing by reducing the conflict between the two to the minimum and by showing a way in which both will tend to bring about a healthy growth of each other.
Aristotle has treated of the individual only from the point of view of the state and he wants the individual to fit in the mechanism of the state and the society. It is very clear that relation between individual and society are very close. So we will discuss here Rawls three models of the relation between the individual and society: His most telling argument against the utilitarian position is that it conflates the system of desires of all individuals and arrives at the good for a society by treating it as one large individual choice.
It is a summing up over the field of individual desires. Utilitarianism has often been described as individualistic, but Rawls argues convincingly that the classical utilitarian position does not take seriously the plurality and distinctness of individuals . It applies to society the principle of choice for one man. Rawls also observes that the notion of the ideal observer or the impartial sympathetic spectator is closely bound up with this classical utilitarian position.
It is only from the perspective of some such hypothetical sympathetic ideal person that the various individual interests can be summed over an entire society . The paradigm presented here, and rejected by Rawls, is one in which the interests of society are considered as the interests of one person.
Plurality is ignored, and the desires of individuals are conflated. The tension between individual and society is resolved by subordinating the individual to the social sum.
The social order is conceived as a unity. The principles of individual choice, derived from the experience of the self as a unity, are applied to society as a whole.
Rawls rightly rejects this position as being unable to account for justice, except perhaps by some administrative decision that it is desirable for the whole to give individuals some minimum level of liberty and happiness. But individual persons do not enter into the theoretical position. They are merely sources or directions from which desires are drawn.
Justice as Fairness The second paradigm is that which characterizes the original position. It has already been suggested that this is a picture of an aggregate of individuals, mutually disinterested, and conceived primarily as will. While not necessarily egoistic, their interests are each of their own choosing.
Relationship between Individual and Society
They have their own life plans. They coexist on the same geographical territory and they have roughly similar needs and interests so that mutually advantageous cooperation among them is possible. Thus, one can say, in brief, that the circumstances of justice obtain whenever mutually disinterested persons put forward conflicting claims to the division of social advantages under conditions of moderate scarcity .
Here the tension between individual and society is resolved in favor of plurality, of an aggregate of mutually disinterested individuals occupying the same space at the same time. It is resolved in favor of the plural, while giving up any social unity which might obtain. The classical utilitarian model and the original position as sketched by Rawls provide paradigms for two polar ways in which the tension between the plurality of individuals and the unity of social structure might be resolved.
One resolution favors unity and the other favors plurality. It is described as a good, as an end in itself which is a shared end. This paradigm is distinct both from the conflated application to the entire society of the principle of choice for one person and from the conception of society as an aggregate of mutually disinterested individuals.
The idea of a social union is described in contrast to the idea of a private society. A private society is essentially the second model as realized in the actual world.
Relation between Individual and Society
It stems from a consideration of the conditions of the original position as descriptive of a social order. Over against this notion of private society, Rawls proposes his idea of a social union . It is one in which final ends are shared and communal institutes are valued. Marx and Engels on Relationship between Individuals and Society The direct elaborations of Marx and Engels on relationships between individual action and social process can be divided into three categories for purposes of discussion: