Quote:
Originally Posted by Smidgey
It absolutely is. A collectivist is someone who considers politics, morality, law, etc in terms of groups of people and not individuals - do you deny this?
|
That could mean many different things. Individuals should be put first but it is useless to simply talk in terms of abstract individuals, in general groups are where you find individuals.
If you mean someone who doesn't use just methodological individualism or atomism then it is quite sensible to be one, alot more than holding those simplistic and silly ways of looking at society, politics et al.
If you mean he puts groups and collectives, particularly large ones, always ahead of the individual and generally thinks only about them then that is different and could deserve the term collectivist.
Quote:
Noachian is doing exactly this and so to call him a collectivist (in terms of his wanting a common unifying culture or monarchy and institutions) is correct.
You are using an obscure definition of collectivist, which is making it difficult for you to grasp what is meant. As applied to the current discussion it is absolutely adequate. Collectivism can apply to many things.
|
It depends how you use the term. I fear you are using it in the Randian way of simply anyone who goes beyond childish methodological individualism.