Are groups, individuals?

Forums: Philosophy, Academic Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This is a sort of a pure "academic philosophy" question..

The question is the following:

It is generally accepted an individual have properties. ( e.g: A person is a individual). Each person thinks in a certain way, and behavior according to want he/she wants. What happens when 2, or more people join together to form a "group". Some philosophers argue that groups are individuals in the sense that they have properties we associate with individuals. By groups, I mean institutions, corporations, government identities etc. Do you agree with this position? If not, why not?

This might seem like an abstract debate, but it has practical implications. If this idea is true, then the "scientific community" is one entity which might/might not sure share the limitations of each scientists. Corporations are entities, and have particular behavior. You get the point?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 1,015 • Replies: 11

[+3] - Finn dAbuzz - 04/09/2011[quote="TuringEquivalent"] [quote="Finn dAbuzz"] While a person is a collection of individual living cells, it is the basic element of any set based on thinking, feeling and...

@TuringEquivalent,

While a person is a collection of individual living cells, it is the basic element of any set based on thinking, feeling and taking concious actions.

No matter how similar the members of a Group may think, feel and act, they will remain distinct elements within a set.

Groups may share some of the characteristics of Individuals, but dogs share some of the characteristics of brussel sprouts and we would probably not enage is a discussion of whether or not dogs are brussel sprouts.

While it is interesting and valid to consider the effect of Group membership on the Individuals thinking, feeling and actions, I don't think it's necessary to render the two equivalents.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

While a person is a collection of individual living cells, it is the basic element of any set based on thinking, feeling and taking concious actions.

No matter how similar the members of a Group may think, feel and act, they will remain distinct elements within a set.

Groups may share some of the characteristics of Individuals, but dogs share some of the characteristics of brussel sprouts and we would probably not enage is a discussion of whether or not dogs are brussel sprouts.

While it is interesting and valid to consider the effect of Group membership on the Individuals thinking, feeling and actions, I don't think it's necessary to render the two equivalents.

Can you be more coherent in stating your argument? Do you even know your thesis? Never mind, Just get the hell out. You don 't understand, and there is no point for me to waste my time on you.

2 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

There will always be levels of analysis which considers the unity of groups in an potential infinite regress of nested levels. The Gaia hypothesis is one example. The "mistake" is to confuse levels of discourse. For example in the statement "The USA is trying to prevent a Middle East" an inappropriate psychological (individual) logic is being applied to a macro-situation. From this point of view, much of history is indeed "bunk" !

1 Reply

@fresco,

Fresco - there is a practical implication to the issue, and it's not subject to any risk of infinite regression: our Supreme Court decided some time ago that corporations (aggregations of persons, loosely put) have rights to free speech analogous to those of individual persons; viz. Citizens United v. FEC

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

There are lots of traits common to groups and individuals, namely one of the most important concerns in observing how an Institution defends and behaves itself just like a cell when opposing foreign "attacks" or different perspectives that might be confronted with along its existence...in fact the so called "block defence" renders most debates useless, pathetic manicheistic theatrical nonsense...

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

While a person is a collection of individual living cells, it is the basic element of any set based on thinking, feeling and taking concious actions.

No matter how similar the members of a Group may think, feel and act, they will remain distinct elements within a set.

Groups may share some of the characteristics of Individuals, but dogs share some of the characteristics of brussel sprouts and we would probably not enage is a discussion of whether or not dogs are brussel sprouts.

While it is interesting and valid to consider the effect of Group membership on the Individuals thinking, feeling and actions, I don't think it's necessary to render the two equivalents.

Never mind, Just get the hell out.

No, I don't think I will allow you to banish me.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

In English Law too, companies have always been deemed to be "individual entities". But I do not take this question to be about the "practicalities" of legal codes. I take it to be about epistemological and ontological issues concerning the relationship between a group and its members.
(NB My post above should have read ".....Middle East war.....")

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

Finn's points were fine, if a little odd.

Most philosophers do seem to ignore (or are ignorant of) the biological sympathetic responses that occur between human beings.

As a somewhat diversion from the topic - many ignore (or are ignorant of) how (and why) neurons intertwine in the brain too.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Up for the axons dendrites or synapses lecture? Everybody can read new scientist these days... Wink

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

In sociology and social anthropology, as I recall, there are contrasting orientations of relevance to this discussion: One argues that individuals, because they carry around their group's culture within them, are as much or more group phenomena as they are concrete individuals. The other, the advocates of "methodological individualism" take the position that individuals are fundamentally/ontologically distinct despite their cultural similarities. I believe that both orientations have merit, but not when they go to the extreme of ignoring that all "members" have the potential to rebel against their group's values and interests, or the other extreme of ignoring that distinct individuals cannot function without socialization into a collective "organism." The first orientation describes automatons; the second describes feral creatures.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I was in particular referring to philosophers who aim to 'live in the moment' by doing away with all 'attachments', which is physically impossible to do.

It appears we can to a large degree 'disengage' our sympathetic responses, but my guess is that we simply replace sympathetic closed circuits, with sympathetic open ended circuits - ie. we still experience the biological sympathetic response internally, but by the time it reaches external 'expression', the results are different.

As for the exact workings of those connections - a general knowledge that the brain forms a bazillion connections within itself is mostly enough.

0 Replies

Are groups, individuals?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know