A most curious thing happened to me the other day. As I sat down to prepare for my Govt. 6 final exam, I opened my textbook, Classics of Moral and Political Philosophy, edited by Michael Morgan. As I began to comb through my notes, a phone notification interrupted me. It was an invitation to a Zoom link, with the cryptic title: “On Individuality.” Intrigued, I clicked on the link. Suddenly, several figures popped up on my screen: Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill and Socrates. First connecting to audio and trying to contain my excitement, I quickly joined the philosophers’ conversation, first considering their points and proceeding to argue my own. This essay entails my best recollection of the experience, recorded as a dialogue. Along the way, I found that I agreed with the outlook that individuality — encouraged through freedom to act as one pleases without encroaching on others — exists as a positive force in society because it gives us the ability to push the boundaries of action, perspective and ideology ever farther from our primitive origins.
CLICK TO JOIN ZOOM MEETING:
SOCRATES: In my life, gentlemen, I aroused a great deal of hostility among my contemporaries. I think you will find, though, that my open embrace of individuality was the bright spark which led to my later demise. My story, recorded in Plato’s Apology, goes something like this. At the ripe age of seventy, I was brought before a court in Athens (Morgan 46). The accusers’ affidavit charged me with committing injustice and being a “busy-body,” investigating things beneath the earth and in the heavens, making the weaker argument the stronger, and teaching these things to others (47). Now, gentlemen, your modern intellects may lead you to wonder why such things would merit either trial or punishment. Let me remind you that I lived in an age when belief was dogmatic, human experiences were projected onto the Divine, answers were gathered from the oracle and threats to the intellectual status quo were seen as a viable danger to the entire polis.
Now, you may not have met me before, but perhaps you know my ideology through my Socratic teaching style, which I established to cross-examine individuals who claim wisdom and expose the accuracy of their argument (50). Individuality is prerequisite to my style of teaching and examination: if there were no differences between us, there would be no arguments to be had. And I think we can agree that my defense in the Athenian courts shows the importance we implicitly assign to individual disagreement and dissent. After all, since even before the days of ancient Greece, we humans have erected forums in order to deduce the truth and produce justice. Without disputes and different thoughts from individuals, there would be no issues to settle, and society would remain ignorant and stagnant.
MILL: A quick interruption, if you will allow me, Socrates. Though I am excited to hear the rest of your story, I thought I would point out that I too believe in the benefits of individual thought. I argue in my work On Liberty that by cultivating and calling forth individuality, we humans become a “noble and beautiful object of contemplation,” (1041). To argue that whomever our Maker is would endow us with faculties of reason and not want them to be “cultivated,” “unfolded” and enjoyed would be, well, preposterous. Please continue, Socrates.
SOCRATES: Well, this Christianity of yours certainly sounds fascinating. We will have to touch on it after our present conversation. The details of my trial are unimportant [the jury found Socrates guilty], but the thoughts it provoked remain key (59). As I contemplated my life in its final hours, I came to understand that “the unexamined life isn’t worth living” (60). That is, what constitutes our greatest good as men is to discuss virtue every day (60). To me, individuality supersedes both age and finances (55). In many ways, the ability for men to express their own opinions is the great equalizer. To practice philosophy and draw closer to an understanding of virtue and goodness is only possible through thorough questioning, examination and testing and allows us to uplift our souls to the “best possible condition” (55).
STRIER: Whether the daily questions, exams and tests I receive as a student will contribute to my virtue in society remains to be seen, Socrates, but that is a conversation for another day. Regarding individuality, I cannot help but agree with what the other gentlemen have argued thus far. You see, I live in an era when dogmatic thought, thoroughly unexamined philosophies of right and wrong and strict codes govern my speech and actions. On the modern forum, the Internet — for our purposes let us consider it like a large town square with little regulation besides the wrath of the masses — those who disagree with others may band together to silence them, criticize them, report them or purge their platform. This serves two primary purposes, one positive and one negative. On the positive side, the critical mass of readers and thinkers are able to quickly identify misinformation, provide stronger examples and make their better case known. Their better arguments are then easily spread among the masses. On the negative side, if too many people buy into popular dogma as truth or lose themselves among the swelling tide of those with similar opinions, their presuppositions about the truth will lead them to their conclusions, a dangerous situation in any era.
I suppose, though, that I would rather live in a society where everyone can voice their individual opinions, even if many are false or unsubstantiated, than in one where individuality is entirely suppressed. To know that I can take to the common forum with my thoughts, or dress up how I please, is a privilege. When everybody can do so, and the most logical or best forms of thought or dress, as two examples, become popular, everybody in society can benefit.
MILL: I cannot help but gloat in hearing your narrative, Jacob, though I have had to suspend my disbelief in order to consider your bizarre example of this digital “common forum.” Even this Zoom stuff is a tricky business. The reason for my satisfaction is that in my writings I suggested the danger of the “tyranny of the prevailing opinion,” a danger which appears to have persisted past the change of the millennium (1011-1012). I argued that there is a limit to the “legitimate interference” of collective opinion with individual independence (1012). To know where the line is and prevent society from compelling all its constituent individuals from fashioning themselves upon the general model is critical. As a matter of fact, I —
MARX: Enough! I have sat here, quietly, listening to you gentlemen agree with each other in good-humored unison, celebrating individuality as you would riches. Have you stopped to consider the many negative attributes associated with your lifestyles? Socrates, I will start with your narrative. I know from my own reading of the Apology that in your examinations of the wise person, citizen or foreigner you encounter on Athens’ streets, you had to forgo leisure and general comforts entirely (50). In fact, you note that you lived in “extreme poverty” as a result of your philosophizing. This comes as no surprise; the system at the hands of the oppressive upper classes is designed to reject those individuals who try to break the status quo. Later in your narrative, the able and wealthy citizens of Athens come together to attack your willingness to think outside of the box and act as an individual.
In my own writings, I propose that landed proprietors, the “bourgeois,” control the common man’s individuality by exploiting his endless toil for their own benefit (1192-1193). Thus, the common man’s inherent ability to use the aforementioned faculties of reason to see through this system of exploitation and free himself from the cycle of oppression must be one of the most positive aspects of individuality. So, I propose an absolute abolition of bourgeois individuality, independence and freedom (1193). I see you gentlemen reproaching me with your body language, squirming in discomfort at my suggestion. Hear me out, please.
In the system I propose, united working men will have no country, nationalism will disappear and the incredible freedom of commerce on the world market will make differences between nations “immaterial” (1194). National differences and antagonisms are decreasing hour-by-hour, and the proletariat’s unity will lead to the abolition of inheritance, the erection of mass “industrial armies,” especially for agriculture, the equal liability to labor and other equalizing conditions (1194-1196).
STRIER: I appreciate your suggestions, Marx. It seems to me that we can all agree, in some way, on the importance of individuality, which I will also refer to as personal freedom in my ensuing comments. To you, personal freedom is the realization of the human capacity to surpass a life of selling one’s labor as a mere marketable commodity and establish a new system. But in your propositions, I fear a loss of the positive aspects of individuality. As Mills accurately notes in On Liberty, the vast majority of people live mildly, with moderate introspection and moderate inclinations (1044). He notes that it is “essential” that different people should be permitted to lead different kinds of lives, and this differentiation is directly correlated to the development of wider society (1041). He adds that human genius can only “breathe” in the atmosphere of freedom, and the select few who dare to think differently from the moderate masses lead “society” to be “better for their genius” (1042). Whether in philosophy, science, cuisine or industry, I can think of many examples in which the innovations of a few have led to easier or more pleasurable lives for the majority. In this way, increased individuality provides a net positive to society because it allows for ingenuity.
After all, Marx, it seems that you led a nomadic lifestyle — moving from Trier to Paris to Brussels to London in search of freedom to philosophize and act as an individual, without succumbing to the same fate at the hands of the frightened masses as Socrates did (1158). In your suggestions of vast industrial armies, people compelled to similar labor and long hours in the fields, and mass standardization of education, I cannot help but wonder whether the genius suggested by Mills (a category which, if you permit me to say, you fall into) will be fostered enough to truly drive society forwards (1195-1196).
If possible, I would also like to comment briefly on culture and groups which surpass the individual level. Mills, I found your statement on the cessation of human differences in On Liberty compelling. You argued that over time, we humans have come to read the same things, listen to the same things, visit similar places, fear and love the same objects, have the same abilities and liberties, and more (1046). Call me sentimental, but the endless sprint towards homogeneity frightens me — and I will go out on a limb to say it frightens both you and Socrates as well. Most notably, your statement about the cessation of our differences being greater than those differences which remain, rings true (1046). After all, in the Socratic age, the differing perspectives among peoples were massive. While animists nurtured spiritual connections with nature and animals among the vast African and American landscapes, Greeks imposed their human experience on the gods around them. Meanwhile my own ancestors, the Jewish people, were drawing upon different Eastern narratives to form a new religion of austere monotheism. At that time, people on different corners of the globe saw the world in deeply different ways; the vestiges of their different views have imbued the canon of world literature, the individual geniuses among them recording their society’s perspective for future generations to ponder. After all, we have gathered in today’s Zoom to discuss and grow as individuals through the discussion of our individual stories and differences. This is another positive impact of individuality: the ability to live life differently and grow through sharing narratives of ever-expanding human experiences.
Now, this is not to say that I believe in either anarchy or a life without association with others. Both laws and various types of group association give our life meaning, a nod to our deep tribalism. So, I conclude that we wrap up our Zoom today with a cursory discussion of the best ways to emphasize individualism as a positive force in society while ensuring order and legal stability. Mill, I can see you are eager to join the conversation with the “raise-hand” feature and several questions in the chat. Please jump in.
MILL: Wonderful, thank you. My basic conclusion in On Liberty is that the worth of a state, over time, is the worth of those individuals within it (1068). I argue that a state which belittles men, turning them into “docile instruments” and suppressing their mental expansion and individuality will accomplish nothing (1068). That’s not to say we should do away with government, instead the government should aid and stimulate individuals’ efforts (1068).
STRIER: And you argue that while governments are usually alike, individual and voluntary associations are varied experiments, leading to an “endless diversity of experience” (1065). This makes sense, as does your condemnation of attempts by the state to “bias” citizens’ conclusions on disputed subjects (1064). Marx, your economic assertions also ring true: individuals caught in the gears of the capitalist system certainly lose agency. But let us set them aside for arguments’ sake and focus on individuality and ideology. Does not your assertion of abolishing “eternal truths,” “religion,” and “all morality,” risk becoming dogma in itself (1195)? Sure, it may sound like abolishing such things would encourage individualism, as truths, religion and morality are all things which are held in common by groups of people. Yet, the ability to choose between different “half-truths” according to my own inclination, as Mills puts it, and to pursue various ideological or religious schools at my will is where individuality truly shines (1037).
MILL: I am glad that you agree.
STRIER: I’ll wrap up this discussion now, as I see that our neglect to purchase a premium subscription means our Zoom chat will end shortly. Everyone, I appreciate hearing your opinions. Though I am still coming to my conclusions, you will have noticed that I have aired on Mills’ side several times. As I seek to express myself freely without fear of retribution from others online, and seek out information at my own pace, I find his argument in On Liberty particularly compelling. He notes that when men refrain from molesting others with their own concerns and act according to their own judgement, they should be allowed to do what they please at their own cost “(1037).
Socrates, in the narrative presented in Plato’s Crito, you were nurtured by the “Laws” which you implicitly chose to follow by never leaving your polis (69). When presented with the option to submit to the laws in the form of the death penalty or escape using your means, you stood by your convictions and were put to death. In this way, you had agency in your demise, and at least had the hope of an afterworld where you would associate with, examine, and talk to whomever you please, which seems to me the most precise expression of individuality (Apology, 69). And, since the prospect thereof made you happy, it is only evident that a society which maximizes those individualistic ideals, grounded in freedom, on earth would be the best.
HOST HAS ENDED THE MEETING.
Works Cited
Morgan, Michael L. Classics of Moral and Political Theory, Hackett Publishing Company, 2011.